About Rationally Speaking

Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Podcast Teaser: The Great Atheist Debate over the limits of science

A new word has entered the atheist vocabulary of late: “accommodationist.” It is meant as a derogatory term toward those atheists and assorted rationalists who try to extend a metaphorical olive branch to moderate religionists and find common ground against the real danger, fundamentalism (of any kind, religious or not). To give you an idea of the landscape, I think it is fair to count Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, and PZ Myers among the “purists,” while Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer and yours truly have been labelled as accommodationists.

Contrary to what many people think, this isn’t a debate about pragmatic tactics in the culture wars, it is a matter of principle. Few people — possibly not even Dawkins — would disagree that, say, the fight for a true separation of church and state has to include a broad coalition of religious and non-religious groups, partly because the goal is in the interest of both parties, and partly because there simply wouldn’t be hope for just secular groups to prevail, considering that they represent a (sizable) minority of the population.

The Great Atheist debate is a matter of principle because it hinges on the epistemic limits of science. When Dawkins says that science can refute “the God hypothesis,” or Coyne claims that a 900-ft Jesus appearing in London (why London?) would disprove atheism, they are making epistemological assertions that are founded on a naive understanding of philosophy of science (and it is interesting that both of these esteemed colleagues scoff at the very idea that philosophy has anything to contribute to the debate).

The argument on the “accommodationist” side (a term that deliberately sounds like “collaborationist,” presumably to insinuate a negative connotation, a logical fallacy known as poisoning the well) is that there is a distinction between methodological and philosophical naturalism. I first heard this argument from my friend Genie Scott several years ago, and — not having any background in philosophy (at the time I was a scientist) — reacted pretty much like Dawkins and Coyne. But a moment of serious reflection shows that Scott is correct: naturalism is the idea that all there is in the universe is natural phenomena and natural laws, i.e. there is no supernatural. Philosophical naturalism is essentially the atheist’s (eminently reasonable) position, grounded on serious philosophical arguments (e.g., the argument from evil) and informed (but, crucially, not determined) by science — science provides the most reasonable explanation for questions of origins, so it makes sense to accept those instead of fanciful stories about gods and angels that do not amount to explanations at all.

Methodological naturalism is what science does: science cannot investigate the supernatural because the latter — by definition — can be compatible with any given empirical observation, and moreover it simply cannot be experimented upon. But science doesn’t need the stronger philosophical position, it works very nicely by using the methodological (i.e., pragmatic) stance that what it studies likely has a natural explanation, so let’s go and find out if we can.

A common strategy of the “purist” camp is to say that science falsifies specific religious notions, such as Noah’s flood, or that the earth is 6,000 years old. Besides the fact that it is funny for a philosopher to see scientists invoking Popper’s idea of falsificationism (which has been superseded decades ago in philosophy of science), this simply won’t do, for two reasons. First, the claim is that science can reject the God hypothesis, not just a specific version of it. Plenty of Christians do not read the Bible literally, so any “falsification” based on that approach is out the window. But it gets worse: science technically cannot even reject young earth creationism because of an escape clause known in some circles as “last Thursdaysm.” The idea is that, yes, the earth may look like it is billions of years old, and it may look like there are millions of fossils scattered throughout the geological column. But in fact the world was created by god last Thursday (or whenever), and he arranged it this way just to test our faith.

Let us be clear on this: regardless of how many Christians actually subscribe to some version of last Thursdaysm (we don’t know, there are no polls), the example unequivocally shows why science has no business testing supernatural hypotheses: because they are not hypotheses at all, just like supernatural “explanations” do not, in fact, explain anything. They are just elaborate and fanciful admissions of ignorance.

Last Thursdaysm, however, gets into deep theological and philosophical troubles, for what does this sort of divine behavior tell us about the nature of god? Is he a cosmic trickster bent on providing us with the gift of reason only to hurl us into hell if we use it properly? And we are supposed to honor and adore this guy? Notice too that the philosophical counter here gets off the ground by acknowledging the science as background information (i.e., the earth really is much older than 6,000 years), but does not in fact depend crucially on it for its rejoinder (after all, Hume’s and Kant’s arguments against the existence of god were very persuasive before Darwin and Einstein).

So, dear readers and podcast listeners, what do you think of the Great Atheist debate? What about the distinction between science and philosophy that underlies it? What are the epistemic limits of science, and do they somehow constitute a problem for the scientific endeavor?

When Dawkins says that science can refute “the God hypothesis,” [he is] making [an] epistemological assertion that [is] founded on a naive understanding of philosophy of science...

If Dawkins had meant "refute TGH" to mean "prove the negative with absolute certainty," then you'd be right. But of course that's not what he means. He means something like: for all intents and purposes TGH is disproven. He's been clear about this in writing. (He wrote about being a 6 on his 7 point scale of belief, with 7 being absolutely certainty that there is no god.)

You stated, "The debate whether there is a God is futile. If scientists and philosophers are interested in doing something useful, they should ignore it.”

Perhaps a détente on this issue might create some harmony. However, this is easy for the atheist to say in light of the fact that science has already been co-opted by naturalism, which only allows natural explanations of phenomena.

Is supernaturalism any more irrelevant to science than naturalism? What evidence is there that phenomena occur naturally? While we all acknowledge the existence of laws/formulae that explain and cause the activity of objects, we cannot directly perceive or measure whether or not these laws are natural and unintelligent. In fact, I don’t think that there is one shred of evidence in support of naturalism, while there are many considerations that point decisively to supernaturalism.

I don't understand what accommodationists want. It always seems to me they are saying something like "faith and science are compatible." This is a statement devoid of content...in some ways and in some circumstances perhaps true, in other cases absolutely and obviously false. The kind of philosophical distinction you're referring to has never been part of this discussion that I've seen. We are talking about how we function as a society. Should we use supernatural beliefs to decide what children are taught about nature? make foreign policy decisions? determine medical practices? evaluate our morals and ethics and those of others? I feel like every time someone says "science and faith are compatible" they are granting standing to antiquated tribal superstitions in these discussions.

"Is he a cosmic trickster bent on providing us with the gift of reason only to hurl us into hell if we use it properly?"

Mysteries are generally good I think (the sense of wonder and beauty that can go along with it) and not necessarily tricks at all. That is a perception problem on your own behalf.

There are a number of other instances when using reason "properly" really is a matter of life and death, why not towards the matter of eternity? It would be senseless if life didn't work that way.

"And we are supposed to honor and adore this guy? Notice too that the philosophical counter here gets off the ground by acknowledging the science as background information"

Well if it isn't background information, what is it exactly?

Science, we all know, is just a fraction of all the information found in the world and universe. Biology, inside of science is even an infinitesimally smaller fraction of the knowledge and information that makes the world what it is. And a person ought look to Biology and its presumed subset evolution for meaning and truth on life's MOST IMPORTANT and weighty matters because???

The problem with supernatural explanations isn't that they are wrong. The problem is that they are fundamentally incoherent and so not even wrong. I can enter into a strategic accommodation with religious people. But philosophical accommodation? How? I'm sorry but silly remains silly no matter how strongly people believe it.

Understand, I will defend a persons right to believe silly things to the death. But along with that is my right to call those things silly. That is far more accommodation than most religious people are willing to grant.

"What science can do is show that natural laws are purposive without the need to evoke a purposeful being as necessary to their causation."

In fact ONLY the opposite is true, Roy. When was the last time that you DID NOT ARRANGE a party and a bunch of people showed up for one anyway? That would be senseless. I mean, after all there would be probably nothing to eat and then that wouldn't much of a party.

Implicit in your suggestion here is that organization and where it happens to come from simply does not matter when nothing could be further from the truth! Organization is the CORE of what make science and its attending practices measurable! Organization thus is NOT Natural.

The next time you let nature ALONE "organize" a party for you, let me know... ;)

How are supernatural explanations any more “silly” than natural ones? While the supernaturalist accounts for the laws of physics as originating and finding their continuance in the single mind of God, the naturalist must posit a myriad of self-sustaining, self-creating mindless forces, somehow all exercising a uniform effect within the universe. In contrast, the transcendent mind of God can adequately explain all the phenomena with which we wrestle – freewill, consciousness, the laws themselves, the origin of life, the cell, DNA, fine-tuning of the universe and even rationality. That doesn’t sound to “silly” to me!

No one is going to "prove" God exists. It's been tried, many times, by some fairly intelligent people. Even if one were to accept such proofs as valid, they will not prove the existence of "God" as normally understood by most--e.g., Aquinas, when he borrowed from Aristotle the prime mover proof (like so much else) and then claimed, having come to the prime mover, "and this we call God." It's a bit of a jump from a "first cause" to the Catholic God.

If the existence of God cannot be established, those who claim there is no God can legitimatly point to that as grounds for doubting God's existence, just as they can point to the fact that events may be explained without resort to God as grounds for such doubt. But, this likely will mean nothing to any believer, particularly those intelligent enough to understand that the existence of the God they worship cannot be proven in any accepted sense of the word. The lack of proof makes no difference to them. The fact that God's existence cannot be scientifically established never has, and never will, convince a believer that God does not exist.

So, it's silly, IMHO, for such as Dawkins to pontificate (an appropriate word, I think) on this issue, just as it is silly to put forth proofs of God's existence. Ultimately, the debate makes no difference.

A cooperative effort to eradicate some of the more extreme, and harmful, religious beliefs may, however, actually make a difference in how we and others live.

All my following paragraphs should start with "again, ..." in the hope that it finally gets through.

When Dawkins says that science can refute “the God hypothesis,” [...] First, the claim is that science can reject the God hypothesis, not just a specific version of it.

This is not what I understand him, Coyne or Stenger to say. They never, never, never claim to be able to reject Last Thursdayism, and in fact often go out of their way (in their books at least) to say what god hypotheses or models they actually deal with, and that they do not care about Last Thursdayism because hardly anybody believes that anyway. You are building strawmen! Or you conflate, by pretending that the god of Last Thursdayism is the same as that of mainstream Christianity, so that you can then pretend that who claims to be able to reject the latter also claims to be able to reject the former.

it is interesting that both of these esteemed colleagues scoff at the very idea that philosophy has anything to contribute to the debate

Look, it is really easy. Nobody denies in principle that there is a philosophical element to science - if you want to call it that, see below. As you rightly pionted out to me before, things like Russell's teapot, or the idea that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, or that we can actually believe our sense and yes, we are probably not brains in a jar, all that can be called philosophy. But this is not so much apart from science, and has to be protected from dirty science by a big epistemic wall; rather, it is an integral part of what science is.

In claiming that an atheist scientist is not allowed to say his science disproves god without the need to recruit a fully qualified philosopher, you are basically saying a biologist is not allowed to do statistics on their organisms without recruiting a fully qualified mathematician. No, sorry, the biologist does not need to constantly scream "look, look, I am not doing biology anymore, it is really math", or even "well, I cannot say anything about whether these subspecies have significantly different average body weights. Epistemic limits of biology. Only a mathematician can do that." No, basic math is part of biology today. Really. I had a course math for biologists, and the next semester I had statistics for biologists.

"How are supernatural explanations any more “silly” than natural ones?..."

There is not one shred of evidence for any of the silly unsupported speculations about supernatural causes to any of those phenomena that you mentioned and 10000000000000000 X 10 to the 1000th power pieces for evidence of natural causes. That is what makes your statement silly to the point of inanity.

So, a scientist can say that the universe does not look created, and that thus a creator god can reasonably be rejected, or maybe, even that it is disproven beyond reasonable doubt. Yes, reasonable doubt. All serious scientists, and certainly people of the caliber you are arguing against, know that there is never a 100% certainty, and that Last Thursdayism is irrefutable. But if you say that it makes the god question philosophical, then no question in science can be answered by science, as the same ad-hoc cop-out can be formulated for everything.

You just want people to get off your turf, although all they need from philosophy to reject gods are a few tools so simple they can be taught to a kindergarden child.

There is, of course, also a different option: we could not call it philosophy and just realize that it is the innately sensible approach we take whenever we want to find out what is factual. We use the same modes of thinking to find our lost keys. Are we doing philosophy then? Whatever. But this is what New Atheism boils down to: there is one way of trying to understand the material world that works, and there is no reason except customary privilege not to apply it to the god question.

Key word: material world. Which brings us to:

naturalism is the idea that all there is in the universe is natural phenomena and natural laws, i.e. there is no supernatural.

Sounds entirely reasonable to me, but by definition. If it exists, it is part of nature, and thus object of science. If it interacts with matter, it is part of nature, and thus object of science. If it can be seen, felt, measured, distorts space, emits radiation, whatever you want, it is part of nature, and thus object of science. A soul, if it existed, would be part of nature and thus an object of science, as would be angels, creator gods, fairies, demons or suchlike. If it cannot be detected in any way, then we can safely assume it does not exist. Thus, supernatural is an empty category, or let us say, it consists by definition of phantasma, because everything that can be shown to exist is by definition part of nature.

supernatural hypotheses: ... they are not hypotheses at all...

Interesting how you can just sweep the falsification of religious notions off the table as unremarkable - by hanging an "-ism" on it and calling it old-fashioned -, and then go on to deny the existence supernatural hypotheses... why exactly? Because they cannot be rejected? Well, what is it?

Last Thursdaysm, however, gets into deep theological and philosophical troubles, for what does this sort of divine behavior tell us about the nature of god? Is he a cosmic trickster bent on providing us with the gift of reason only to hurl us into hell if we use it properly? And we are supposed to honor and adore this guy?

How does it get into troubles? The question was never whether god was nice, but whether it exists. Ultimately, the philosophical or theological questions you outline do not help in any way to decide it. If we want to know if something exists, there is precisely one way to go about it: science plus as much philosophy as is necessary to grasp the idea behind Russell's Teapot. That's it.

It is a matter of principle for me to support an secular society. There is no place for supernatural beliefs in public policy decisions. So I disagree with you that it is some kind of abstract principle frozen in my mind and not in my active focus on maintaining and promoting secularism. It is most definitely a tactic/strategy to not to coddle religious believers. They want to amuse/fulfill themselves via superstitious beliefs just because we do not have the answers to every single question that bothers them, they can do it in private, just like having a bowel movement or having sex.

Mann'sWord, It was almost impossible to discern what you were babbling about but I tried. Your actively believing that your silly beliefs are answering anything, is actually beyond silly, it is delusional, in addition to being boringly trite.

I have lived in a truly secular society, France, for twenty years, and the stuff that I have encountered about the unbridled coddling of religious beliefs in the public, tax-paying sector in America sickens me.

Our poisoning the well? Accommodationists have done that by themselves by being a bunch of mealy mouthed cowards by lying that science and religion are compatible fields of studies. One is based on evidence, the other is make it up as you go along because you want answers to everything right away like a spoiled brat.

I did not realize that you are an accomodationist. I will unsubscribe now that I know because you were the last person that could possibly have made a difference in my understanding of the accommodationists' viewpoint and you came up with this merde? I had left the door open a crack, thinking maybe an accommodationist would come along and make sense. If anybody could have done that, it was you.

"No one is going to "prove" God exists. It's been tried, many times, by some fairly intelligent people. Even if one were to accept such proofs as valid, they will not prove the existence of "God" as normally understood by most--e.g., "

Isn't it true that given enough time anything can happen? Isn't that the underlying premise of evolution? OR IS IT only the underlying premise for evolution when it works for evolution alone?

I, on the other hand, DO believe all these arguments are conquerable. It never occurs to me that given enough time I can't overthrow, with the help of God, every single bit of such thinking. One day, one way or another, you will understand.

Caliana, please stop writing about evolution. Have mercy. My brain hurts trying to understand how you can actually believe that. Really, I fell physical pain seeing how you mangle, distort and misrepresent the science in which I was trained. When you argue evolution you are perhaps the severest case of the Dunning-Kruger effect I have yet come across. Please pick up a basic biology textbook (preferably from outside of Texas). You are like an atheist saying "hey, Jesus was crucified, no? So this means the point of Christianity is torturing other people?" and then acting all superior because this is just so evidently true, and all the Christians must be fools to think otherwise.

And you would not want to share all this special and extremely important information with the whole world? (I did not realize that evolution had become so esoteric) No if I had such a great answer, I sure would want to share it with the whole world. I mean...why not? You said it is so super simple that anyone could understand it. If that is the case a short paragraph ought to do just fine. :)

This is not a sacred cow, it is a science. You are so ignorant of what you are trying to criticize that you are completely unaware of the profundity of your ignorance. I am working with molecular and morphological evolution and phylogenies every day, and I can assure you that there is a bit more to the work of thousands of highly trained scientists than "given enough time, miracles can happen". Maybe that is the complexity of thinking that suffices for bible study, I would not know, but it is not in the natural sciences.

Do you see me go to a particle physicist and tell her that quarks really do not exist because they do not occur in my holy book? Not that I have a holy book, but well, you don't. I do not pretend to be able to have any expertise on quarks because I do not have any, so I assume that the people who spend their life studying them will know what they do. And before arguing with them that they study something that does not exist, I would at least do them the courtesy to pick up "particle physics for dummies" and try to find out if I have a leg to stand on at all.

Mintman, Here's the thing. There are all kinds of mysteries that many of us do not understand fully (as you said) but it does not invalidate the possibility that certain things that we do not understand CAN EXIST. Namely even God Himself.

What you are referring to in your studies, I think, are pockets of something like evolution or adaptation on a small scale and I know for a fact that what you are studying does not represent evolution as Darwin explained it. To me, adaptations within species do not amount to evolution. It is only Evolution on a highly limited scale, to which I am not willing to explain all the mysteries in the UNIVERSE by okay?

It doesn't mean I don't care about what you are saying or hear it, it just seems like quite a stretch to use those little instances to explain ALL THIS.

What evidence do you have for your contention, “No one is going to "prove" God exists?” Have you examined all the proofs? The evidence is so compelling that lifelong atheists like Anthony Flew have been “converted” to theism by the evidence from design. In fact, we are all accountable to God because His creation so profoundly points to Him (Romans 1; Psalm 19).

Although natural causation can posit an explanation for the origin of the species, it utterly flounders when it comes to explaining other phenomena which naturalism must explain in order to be credible – the existence of unchanging laws; logic; the origin of life and the cell, consciousness and freewill.

In fact, as I had claimed before, there is not one shred of evidence that the laws that govern the movement and behavior of objects are natural and unintelligent. While we all acknowledge that phenomena are governed by formulae and are therefore predictable, it makes far more sense that the laws find their origin in the mind of God (Just ask Occam!). I therefore challenge you to supply one piece of evidence that the laws are natural and mindless!

God has no problem proving Himself. For one thing, Jesus performed so many incontestable miracles, that even the Jewish writings acknowledge this fact. Indeed, many of us have firsthand acquaintanceship with His miraculous proofs. I would venture to also suggest that many atheists have also encountered the miraculous but have chosen to turn away from this evidence.

Massimo, for the umpteenth time, how can you keep missing this basic point? Look, real simple: New Atheists think many of the dominant religions are forces of evil (one may disagree with this assertion, but you don't, at least not here, so I'm moving on). FORCES OF EVIL. please think what this entails. because that's, to a great extent, their reason for attacking organised religion. this evilness would perhaps be acceptable if we had any (scientific or otherwise) reason to believe that they were the word of a supreme God or Gods. but we do not. so they speak up (Dawkins started to speak up right after 9/11). If, in their view, religions were not evil, they wouldn't speak up. Or if they did, you would perhaps have a point about their lack of philosophical understanding.

I've asked this to you before, but couldn't get a reply: If you were a Jew in Nazi Germany, would you find it OK if I consoled you with this: "well, what is *good* or *evil* anyway? Kant says this, Mill says that and the jury is still out on that one. so who are you to make a rash philosophical commitment by opposing Nazis?" no, you wouldn't, because Nazis were evil and they needed to be stopped. Likewise (but much less intensely), New Atheists argue, religions are evil and they need to be stopped. if people are suffering because of religion (may be a big if) and if we have no (scientific or otherwise) reason to assume that their Gods exist, then who gives a shit about the philosophical subtleties of the question of God. who gives a shit about we cannot technically disprove Young Earth Creationism in science (then use philosophy already!). we should act on this! I find it contemptible that an intellectual such as yourself commits himself to these views. and if you disagree with the *evilness* charge, then let's discuss that. although it would be nice if you showed *some* indication that you understood that this was the key point of the *New Atheists* (btw, talk about poisoning the well! at least *accommodationists* is an accurate description).

Massimo, I think you might have indulged in a little poisoning of the well yourself: Few people — possibly not even Dawkins is a giveaway. Also, your statement that in earlier times you'd have agreed with them, but now you know better seems a bit in the same vein. There's animosity on both sides.

This debate seems to be two groups talking past each other. From what I gather, Coyne, et al. argue that science and religion are epistemologically incompatible. I think this is correct, and your post bears it out. Science finds out 'truth' by a certain method. Religion just asserts stuff and has no method for determining (was going to say falsifying, but you'd laugh at that, or verifying, which would get me labeled me a logical positivist) what is 'truth' or no. It has no method. No epistemic justification. That is an incompatibility. It's also philosophy as you point out.

The (so called) accomodationists, probably not you, reply that some scientists and religious accommodate this epistemic incompatability in their brains (we all are irrational, so that's no surprise), therefore science and religion are trivially compatible. Which is not what the 'purists' are even arguing about and something they don't care about.

In the end, all that they ask is that science bodies neither promote compatibility between science and religion, nor promote incompatibility. Seems reasonable to me. They're not asking that science bodies 'teach the controversy'. Promoting science and implicating a view that scientists have no problem with religion to sell science is misleading. Especially when 'purists' do have a problem with religion conflicting with science.

Hi, I read this blog for the first time today so pardon me if I am not fully aware of all previous debates on this topic. Please read the comment below with an open mind - before trying to judge which camp I belong to:-)

To me it appears like a lot of the debate on "God" vs. atheists seems to be based on a Christian version of God - more specifically the popular bible stories rather than something like The Gospel of Thomas which is more in resonance with the gist of eastern religions/philosophies.

Someone explained quite nicely that the true seers/Buddha/Christ/Krishna/philosophers were committed to inquiry on truth (spending years in forests under harsh conditions was their version of immersing themselves in a lab) stumbled upon deeper truths which they found it hard/difficult to communicate to the common man as it was simply beyond the understanding of a common man. So religion took the form of communicating the truth through stories/parables/metaphors. Unfortunately in most cases, people held on to the parables/stories and forgot the underlying truth they were pointing to. The interesting fact is that every major seer/religion points to the same underlying truth - which actually rhymes well with modern science. (Read Tao of Physics as an example, although not fully accurate in its descriptions of religion as the author didnt appear have to got the states of realization of the original seers/Buddhas). My basic understanding of the core of all easter religion is this:

1) The entire universe is one intelligent field which is the source of all creation..and beyond.

2) This common field is the essence of who you and I are.

3) It is possible for us to access that field when we look within, for that is our very essence. The various paths are what are called as various Yogas in Hinduism (Yoga means union) - not be confused with the modern versions of physical postures sold under the name of yoga.

The above basic postulations of most religions are not really in conflict with science - at least based on my limited understanding.

Rather than arguing about whether it is Right to be an atheist or a "religious' person, lets simply truly research both with intense curiosity to uncover truth. Let us also keep an open mind that a) belief is not it - if its truth we should be able to know it in a self evident way and b) rationality/logic may not be the only only path to infinity - which includes rational and irrational, logical and illogical - with ample evidence all around us :-)

There is a zen statement which I am paraphrasing "This is no such thing as nonsense - you only haven't seen the perspective from which it makes sense"!

Frankly, I think you've completely missed the point, Massimo - or perhaps a whole quiver of points. Philosophical naturalism or methodological naturalism has very little to do with the central disputes between Myers and Coyne et al - including myself - and our opponents who continually go out of their way to reassure believers that science does not conflict with their religious beliefs and practices in any way: The primary problem is that science itself - not the content of science as a body of facts, but the practice of science - stands in direct opposition to faith. Although there are many ways to parse out what exactly the practice of science consists in, every sensible philosopher of science seems to agree that science is a rigorous, formalized species of critical thinking, and they differ primarily on the details of what words like "rigorous" and "formalized" mean. But whatever details one uses to characterize the practice of science, to simply decide what to believe by an act of will - or emotional preference, or childhood indoctrination, or however else people come to adhere to the various beliefs they adopt as matters of faith - is directly and precisely opposed to critical thinking in general and the practice of science in specific.

One clear thinker and writer after another has said very clearly that THIS opposition - between a scientific approach to acquiring knowledge about the world and determining beliefs about the world by faith - is what they mean when they say that science and religion are incompatible. Faith is not, as the more postmodernist-inclined defenders of religion would have it, just a "different way of knowing." Rather, faith blocks the very possibility of knowledge: One cannot investigate and learn - that is, one cannot come to know new truths - when one has decided in advance of any investigation what one will believe to be true.

If you disagree that this conflict between science and religion is real, or think that it somehow isn't important, please do say how and why: As no amateur in the philosophy of science myself, I don't see how methodological vs. metaphysical/philosophical naturalism has much to do with it.

You should also be aware that many of the "accommodationists" who draw the most ire (Chris Mooney, Josh Rosenau, etc.) keep lying about the nature of the claim that science and religion are incompatible, which in large part why the debate has involved so much acrimony: They point to Frances Collins or someone similar and say "See, here's a scientist who is also a believer, therefore science and religion are compatible," implying that the position of their opponents is the laughably stupid claim that one person can't both be a scientist and a religious believer. But, of course, no one ever claimed that - and setting up and knocking down such straw man versions of your opponents' position again and again is eventually going to lead to people not taking you seriously and calling you names. People are perfectly capable of all sorts of compartmentalization, cognitive dissonance, and inconsistency - so the mere fact that people exist who are scientists and also religious believers establishes exactly nothing about the epistemic compatibility of science and religion. No matter how many religious scientists there are, science and religion are still incompatible epistemologies: Or, more accurately, science is an epistemology and faith is an anti-epistemology, a guarantee of never knowing rather than an approach to acquiring knowledge.

Your own disagreements on these matters have always been far more principled, and I've never caught you in such a dishonest straw man argument - but then again, I've never called you an accommodationist either. In fact, I don't remember ever reading anyone accusing you of being an accommodationist. You appear to have taken the label on yourself, AFAIK. Could you be joining a different dispute than you think you are?

Massimo, I think you've slightly misunderstood the debate. I've followed it for some time, mainly thorugh PZ's blog, and this is how I understand it: Chris Mooney et al argue that science educators in the US should explicitly say that science is compatible with religious beliefs, while PZ and others say that science educators shouldn't say anything about religion at all in the classroom. That's all there is to it.

And regarding poisoning the well, it was actually Chris Mooney who first called the likes of PZ Myers "accomodationists", not the other way around. Mooney argued that by saying that science is not compatible with religion, PZ and others accomodate the fundamentalists.

Your points below summarizes very well the distinction between faith based religion vs. an approach to spirituality/truth based on a scientific/rigorous approach (which is quite prevalent in many schools of Hinduism and Buddhism)

You said it very well:" The primary problem is that science itself - not the content of science as a body of facts, but the practice of science - stands in direct opposition to faith. Although there are many ways to parse out what exactly the practice of science consists in, every sensible philosopher of science seems to agree that science is a rigorous, formalized species of critical thinking, and they differ primarily on the details of what words like "rigorous" and "formalized" mean. But whatever details one uses to characterize the practice of science, to simply decide what to believe by an act of will - or emotional preference, or childhood indoctrination, or however else people come to adhere to the various beliefs they adopt as matters of faith - is directly and precisely opposed to critical thinking in general and the practice of science in specific."

I would recommend reading Nisargadatta's "I Am That" (or even Alan Watts' "Do you do it or does it do you" if you prefer a more western approach). The only fact he starts with is that you exist - no one can deny that. Every statement after that is arrived at through inquiry and experience in a scientific way and anyone who has practiced that inquiry across centuries and countries, without contact with each other, has arrived at the same conclusion!

Be warned - it will radically question your basic assumptions about your self and everything you believe to be "true". If you are truly prepared to look at it with an open mind and are committed to find the truth, do look up those books - available for free on the internet or at a small price from Amazon.

but i have problem with the argument presented in the blog because if "science" cannot reject religion when they make claims that contradict known and reproducible physical laws why canphilosophy?

i.e. why can't the religious believer reject parsimony and inference to the best explaination (perhaps even logic itself) and say these are puny human invention that cannot hope to comprehend the vastness of god's mind and any philosophical inconsistency we see are our own inadequacies?

that is the very principles on which science rests once rejected can be rejected again in a "Broader" philosophical setting with exactly the same effect: one can assert the existence of God.

A conflict between religion and science exists when a religion adopts the dictum, “I will only entertain things of faith/spirit and not physical evidences.” Of course, there are religions like this which believe that this is a world of illusion – the physical world does not exist – and consequently not worth investigating. Other religions would have it that our main task is to transcend this physical, evil world.

On the other hand, there are belief systems that believe that there is a stable, uniform, knowable and rational world out there that welcomes investigation. Both Christianity and Atheism fall into this category.

In contrast, one purist wrote, “Faith is not, as the more postmodernist-inclined defenders of religion would have it, just a "different way of knowing." Rather, faith blocks the very possibility of knowledge: One cannot investigate and learn - that is, one cannot come to know new truths - when one has decided in advance of any investigation what one will believe to be true.”

Although this might represent the faith of some religions or belief systems (like postmodernism – many of its adherents maintain that it is we who create our own reality), this statement isn’t true of the Biblical faiths, especially Judaism and Christianity, which are rigorous belief systems, requiring evidences and proofs. For example, the principle of Deuteronomy 19:15 permeates Biblical thinking:

• “One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.”

In like manner, Jesus warned his followers to NOT believe Him without corroborating evidences (John 5:31). Therefore, from a Biblical perspective, faith is not something that is baseless, but rather a stance that is required in light of the confirming evidences. In other words, we believe because we have compelling evidences to believe.

In light of this, making all people of faith out to be dangerous, irrational idiots is unwarranted. In fact, we are ALL people of faith. Although today, many atheists avoid any mention of having a belief system or a faith, this had not previously been the case.

"Although natural causation can posit an explanation for the origin of the species, it utterly flounders when it comes to explaining other phenomena which naturalism must explain in order to be credible – the existence of unchanging laws; logic; the origin of life and the cell, consciousness and freewill."

Mann'sWord,

There would be no limits to my explanatory power if I were able to invoke the notion of magic. I am nothing short of amazed that you think this is in any way an argument for supernaturalism.

Do not delude yourself by thinking that using pixie dust is anything short of abandoning the discussion

Mann'sWord, calling people here purists is offensive. It is crass name calling.

Would you like to be referred to as Jesus' Bitch for quoting those biblical fairy stories? Quoting scripture to us shows that your mind is closed. You are guilty here of what you erroneously accuse others here of doing.

"Philosophical naturalism or methodological naturalism has very little to do with the central disputes between Myers and Coyne et al - including myself - and our opponents who continually go out of their way to reassure believers that science does not conflict with their religious beliefs and practices in any way."

Speaking of strawmen, exactly which of the "accommodationist" say that science does not conflict with young-Earth creationism? If none, then accommodationists do not say that science "does not conflict with religious beliefs and practices in any way" and you've just torched a strawman. The question is then what religious beliefs science conflicts with and in what way.

[W]hatever details one uses to characterize the practice of science, to simply decide what to believe by an act of will - or emotional preference, or childhood indoctrination, or however else people come to adhere to the various beliefs they adopt as matters of faith - is directly and precisely opposed to critical thinking in general and the practice of science in specific.

The practice of science? ... of course! But we're not talking about the practice of science, since all scientists who also happen to be theists ... from Newton, through R.A. Fisher and Theodosius Dobzhansky and up to and including Francisco Ayala and Ken Miller today agree with the practice of science ...

Faith is not, as the more postmodernist-inclined defenders of religion would have it, just a "different way of knowing." Rather, faith blocks the very possibility of knowledge: One cannot investigate and learn - that is, one cannot come to know new truths - when one has decided in advance of any investigation what one will believe to be true.

Really? Newton, Fisher, Dobzhansky, Ayala and Miller were blocked from scientific knowledge? Damn! We're going to have to go back and redo a lot of science!

They point to Frances Collins or someone similar and say "See, here's a scientist who is also a believer, therefore science and religion are compatible," implying that the position of their opponents is the laughably stupid claim that one person can't both be a scientist and a religious believer.

Uh, excuse me, but you made the claim that the two epistemologies are incompatible. Were the people cited able to apply the epistemology correctly, despite the claim that they were "blocked" from doing so? Ifso, you must mean that the scientific epistemology should be applied to everything. If so, when was the last time you applied the empiric epistemology to 2+2=4? The epistemology of math is not empiric/inductive but, instead, deductive ... and those are not the same thing. If, in fact, you are "no amateur in the philosophy of science," then you must be aware of Hume, who made that point. (Continued ...

[T]he mere fact that people exist who are scientists and also religious believers establishes exactly nothing about the epistemic compatibility of science and religion.

Indeed not. But neither is it established that there is one and only one true epistemology.

No matter how many religious scientists there are, science and religion are still incompatible epistemologies: Or, more accurately, science is an epistemology and faith is an anti-epistemology, a guarantee of never knowing rather than an approach to acquiring knowledge.

So, when you tell your significant other or your children that that you "love" them, you don't "know" that, prior to subjecting those claims to rigorously scientific testing? If so, I feel very sorry for you.

If you think Shakespeare is the greatest author in the English language; Mozart the greatest composer; Turner the greatest painter; Dante the greatest poet, etc., etc., you are wrong unless you agree that the only epistemology to be applied to any thought, whatsoever, is science? Whether or not we can investigate those claims .., you are wrong to believe them? Unless you have empiric evidence, suitable for peer review, for those propositions, they must be incompatible with science and you should forthrightly deny that you have any reason whatsoever that you love your SO and children?

Now, of course, what you are espousing is a philosophy (perfectly respectable) called "scientism." But it is a philosophy, not science (unless you are unable to distinguish the two ... which means you adhere to "scientism?).

People are perfectly capable of all sorts of compartmentalization, cognitive dissonance, and inconsistency - so the mere fact that people exist who are scientists and also religious believers establishes exactly nothing about the epistemic compatibility of science and religion.

Quite apart from the common misunderstanding of the meaning of "cognitive dissonance," which certainly doesn't apply to people like Newton, Fisher, Dobzhansky, Ayala and Miller (or if it does, who cares?), unless you can demonstrate that "scientists" are somehow above and beyond whatever you mean by compartmentalization, cognitive dissonance, and inconsistency", and show that it is relevant to the actual practice of science. The very reason that we have peer review, and repeated testing is to remove those kinds of biases. In short, if it is a part of the human condition to hold contradictory ideas, there very purpose of the "scientific method" is to remove them, they are no great obstacle to science and who cares ? ... and that goes as much for atheism as theism.

Speaking of strawmen, exactly which of the "accommodationist" say that science does not conflict with young-Earth creationism? If none, then accommodationists do not say that science "does not conflict with religious beliefs and practices in any way" and you've just torched a strawman. The question is then what religious beliefs science conflicts with and in what way.

That is correct in theory, as in theory accomodationism would have to amount to telling the religious faithful what theology they are allowed to practice, i.e. only that which does not conflict with science. Unfortunately, the only theology that does not conflict with the body of scientific knowledge we have accumulated today is Last Thursdayism; everything else is out. Obviously, communicating that honestly to the religious side would be pretty much indistinguishable from New Atheism (tm), and therefore accomodationists in reality spend all their time shouting down outspoken atheist scientists because they are afraid that the believers' feelings might be hurt.

The rest of your comment again misses the whole point of the claim of incompatibility. You may have heard it before, but here once again: religious faith and science are exactly as compatible as cheating on your spouse and marriage. Yes, there are married people who cheat. We know! Honestly! But the idea of marriage is to be true to each other. And yes, there are good scientists who build a mental wall between their professional work and their private faith and then sit in front of me in the restaurant and go "but I know in my heart that there is a divine purpose in life". We know! Honestly! But if they told us at a conference that they knew the interpretation of their scientific results in their heart they would be laughed out of the room, and rightly so, because the idea of science is to accept only claims that have been tested and found to pass. In that sense, the approaches are completely incompatible, and it is only honest to state that.

By the way, I do not at all believe that Massimo actually is an accomodationist. He is a very outspoken atheist who leaves no doubt that gods are a failed concept - he only claims that you need philosophy to show that. Accomodationists, in contrast, go out of their way to reassure believers that they can continue believing, implicitly claiming that there is no way at all to show their faith to be incoherent.

I can appreciate the basic argument that ultimately its a philosophical position and have changed my tone to that effect. Though I'm still somewhat confused as to why it's not a scientific question.

To set the background for this, recently I was listening to a sceptical podcast which included a debate between a homoeopath and a sceptic. One thing the homoeopath tried to do was to dismiss the calls of a lack of causal mechanism by decrying the sceptic as a materialist - and thus couldn't appreciate that homoeopathy works but not through a material agent.

It's easy to see what was done here, it's completely abated any scientific criticism by putting the causal mechanism beyond the realms of science. Same as the last thursdayism mentioned above, homoeopathy could work as well as a placebo but that's because the supernatural causal agent has the same success rate as a placebo. Thus using a philosophical defence for what really is a scientific issue.

And this is where I have my gripe with such arguments. It's like they are trying to have their metaphysical cake and eat it too. That they want to make a scientific claim, they want to claim that their mystical force is part of reality but at the same time claim it's transcendent, mysterious - but really still there. Can science say homoeopathy is bunk any more than it can say God is bunk?

So this may be where my ignorance lies, but I just can't get my head around it. Why is it when someone says "God made us in his image" or "God is the great cosmic fine tuner" that these aren't scientific claims. I'm confused that when one is positing an interventionist deity that the lack of positive evidence isn't actually a problem. Of course "God is testing our faith" could always be said, but it seems like the same cop-out as "homoeopathy works - just not through the material".

And this is where I have my gripe with such arguments. It's like they are trying to have their metaphysical cake and eat it too. That they want to make a scientific claim, they want to claim that their mystical force is part of reality but at the same time claim it's transcendent, mysterious - but really still there. Can science say homoeopathy is bunk any more than it can say God is bunk?

Precisely what i think! Thanks for putting it so neatly. If you cannot reject god scientifically, then you cannot answer ANY question scientifically, as the same ridiculous ad-hoc hand-waving is available for ANY issue. It makes no sense to privilege the god question.

"Methodological naturalism is what science does: science cannot investigate the supernatural because the latter — by definition — can be compatible with any given empirical observation, and moreover it simply cannot be experimented upon."

Brilliant! The supernatural can be defined as nothing but "escape clauses", curiosity stoppers and ad hoc stratagems for preventing inquiry. But perhaps an example illustrating how can this be would be helpful. I have one: Paranormal claims and claims of the kind the-miracle -only-happens-in-the-abscence-of-sceptics.

So the phrase "supernatural explanation" is simply an oxymoron. Supernatural claims just just don't pass the first methodological filter for being amenable to scientific inquiry. That's their entire point.

Paradoxically it is the "purists" who would need to admit that science and religion are compatible at least methodologically in order to claim that science refutes religion. "Accomodationists" don't need to assume that, they're happy pointing out at the success of methodological naturalism in science as a sufficient reason for rejecting the supernatural.

But why should we be surprised with accomdationism? Excentricity and wild imagination are, according to Popper, acceptable prompters of new hypothesis, solutions and theories, as long as the latter are then subjected to falsification.

As much as I like your analogy -- “Religious faith and science are exactly as compatible as cheating on your spouse and marriage” – I must take issue with it. You must specify what particular faith-precepts to which you are referring.

After all, we are all people of faith. We believe in science and hence in the uniformity of nature, sense perception, and rationality (in that it can mirror the “real” world). None of these things can be formally proved. (In addition to this, you believe that there are “natural” explanations and not supernatural ones.) Instead, they must be assumed. Perhaps we are just dreaming up this physical world, and we’re no more than a proverbial brain in a vat?

In this regard, I like John Pieret’s comments about scientism, which hold s that all cognitions must be subjected to scientific confirmation. Our cognitive tool kits are not so comprehensive so that we can throw away other forms of knowing. Don’t be so quick to discard intuitive or subjective knowledge.

In other words, you're now about to abandon rationality for your own feelings about religion ...

Unfortunately, the only theology that does not conflict with the body of scientific knowledge we have accumulated today is Last Thursdayism; everything else is out. ...

Oh, bullcrap! While no theology is supported by science, most theology (as opposed to ID and other popular attempts to enlist science in favor of certain religious beliefs) is not of that sort. In short, it is still such a far cry from justifiably concluding that science has ruled out all theology ... much less the philosophy that recognizes the difference between science and theology ... to credit any such claim. If science has now made philosophy obsolete and unnecessary, perhaps you can answer the question that no less an "authority" on atheism as E.O. Wilson has pointed out is atheism's biggest difficulty: "why there is something rather than nothing?" If the "New Atheist" script is now followed, you will claim that that is somehow not an important question or start tap dancing, in an empirically-free way, around it.

Now, that does not mean that theology has any real content, but it belies the claim that science has all content. And that's the point Massimo and "accommodationists" not wedded to naive "framing" (i.e. most of them) are making: the claim that science has all answers to all questions is as ludicrously false as, and as damaging to the cause of rationality as, YEC's claims to have all knowledge is ludicrously false and damaging to the cause of theology.

Obviously, communicating that honestly to the religious side would be pretty much indistinguishable from New Atheism (tm)

Massimo does not appear to be, and I am certainly am not, saying you shouldn't. We just hope you won't make such fools of yourself as to hurt the cause we both believe in. But it's a free country. Advising you is not an attempt to silence you ... though it has to be noted how similar the religious right's claim that criticism is "censorship" is to the "New Atheist's" claim that:

... accomodationists in reality spend all their time shouting down outspoken atheist scientists

So much for rational discussion ... when one side thinks that it amounts to "shouting them down," rational discussion is pretty much over.

That is correct in theory... In other words, you're now about to abandon rationality for your own feelings about religion ...

This rejoinder does not have any conceivable connection to what I wrote. I wanted to draw attention to the logical consequence of accomodationism: that you would not only have to tell the "purist" scientists to shut up about how religion is disproved (be it true or not), but you would also have to tell the religious to never make any claims that actually are disproved by science. The latter seems to be forgotten quite often.

Oh, bullcrap! While no theology is supported by science, most theology ... is not of that sort.

Admittedly, I should have specified what I mean with theology. I am not referring to Catholic moral philosophy or suchlike, but I meant theology in the sense of defining what god(s) and religious worldview you believe in overall. And sorry, souls are actively disproved by any reasonable meaning of that word - as much disproved as the vaccine-autism connection or homeopathy. And that fact alone throws pretty much all Abrahamic religions out of the window except if you reduce them to a completely symbolic and metaphoric story without any actual belief-content. And that is not even mentioning the origins of our universe, life on earth and a myriad other scientific observations.

If science has now made philosophy obsolete and unnecessary, [...] it belies the claim that science has all content

I cannot remember ever having made such claims, and I would strongly argue the opposite. We are discussing whether you are a bad scientist if you consider god's existence a scientific question instead of a purely philosophical one, not whether philosophy is obsolete or devoid of content.

"why there is something rather than nothing?"

I am not an astro- or particle physicist, so I am not qualified to answer that question. Victor Stenger cites a colleague who is qualified as giving the answer that something were a more stable state of a system than nothing. I do not remember the exact technical terms, but he also writes something like that the forces of energy stored in the universe (+) and the force of gravitation (-) apparently perfectly sum up to zero, with very tiny difference that is down to measurement errors. A positive energy sum would have been evidence for creation, as it could really not have been explained scientifically, but this observed state seems to support the idea of something-from-nothing.

And that's the point Massimo and "accommodationists" not wedded to naive "framing" (i.e. most of them) are making: the claim that science has all answers to all questions is as ludicrously false as, and as damaging to the cause of rationality as...

No, this is not the point that accomodationists are making. Did you read the discussions, at all? They are being criticized, for example, for going out and telling the believers that science has nothing to say on their religion, which some of us consider a comforting and tactical lie. And they are criticized for having a science organization endorse a theological position, like "god uses evolution to achieve his ends". You utterly misrepresent the whole point of the controversy.

Obviously, communicating that honestly to the religious side would be pretty much indistinguishable from New Atheism... Massimo does not appear to be, and I am certainly am not, saying you shouldn't.

But the accommodationists do, see above. What Massimo seems to do is conflate the gods people actually believe in with an irrefutable Last Thursdayism god so that he can then lambaste scientists claiming to have disproved the first for claiming to have disproved the latter, which they plainly never claimed.

So much for rational discussion ... when one side thinks that it amounts to "shouting them down," rational discussion is pretty much over.

Again, I am referring to actual accomodationists, in particular, in this case, to Mooney and Kirshenbaum's claim that we atheists must shut up about the incompatibility if we do not want to strengthen the fundies. The whole point of their argument is to tell people to shut up, there is nothing more to it.

I don't quite know where Massimo or this article is standing, what it is arguing for. Others have made the same point above.

I am a big follower of naturalism.org, and from there have become more immersed in the "religious" debates in the last year. I read a mainstream atheist work for the first time, Dawkins's God Delusion, about a month ago. I thought he was pretty careful to discern the limits of methodological naturalism while stating upfront why, based on plausibility, he accepts philosophical naturalism. I also did not see anything directly disparaging in the work, but only a man trying to understand and explain the natural and social world around him to the best of his ability. The divide and hostility between the two camps of the atheists' side seems completely unnecessary, and from that Dawkins' book alone I do not see any reason for Massimo and other "accommodationists" to distance themselves from Dawkins and others of similar vein. Granted that was my take from one book and many blogs, etc, (altough I think he spoke genuinely and sincerely in it) and there may be other reasons.

I look forward to the podcast, maybe it will be more enlightening to what I do not understand of this riff in general, and exactly to where Massimo stands in it.

The argument based on the order of the universe, and the fact our minds seem predisposed to discern that order and take advantage of it (roughly speaking) is my favorite. I think it finds its most sophisticated proponent in C.S. Peirce, whose concept of "musement" as defined in his article regarding a "Neglected Argument" for God has always fascinated me.

But, as Peirce recognized, it is merely an argument. And, if those who claim that there is a multiverse are correct, it would be inevitable that a universe such as ours would exist along with many others which we would find incomprehensible.

In any case, as I've said, I feel it's pointless to debate this; there will be no resolution of this issue through argument. Whether regarded as a scientific, philosophical or theological issue, debating it is a waste of time.

... but you would also have to tell the religious to never make any claims that actually are disproved by science. The latter seems to be forgotten quite often.

Forgotten by whom? What internet/magazines/science books are you reading? Of course, theists are just as free to draw philosophical/theological "conclusions" from the facts produced by science as New Atheists are ... its just that neither of them are entitled to call it "science." Recently, an evangelical Christian (and scientist), Stephen Barr, caused some consternation in ID circles when he told the IDers to knock it off. Who, exactly, is forgetting it?

... souls are actively disproved by any reasonable meaning of that word ...

Whenever anybody starts throwing around the term "reasonable meaning" ... as the Discoveryless Institute frequently does ... I reach for my bullcrap meter. I won't get into an endless argument over this evidence-deprived claim but it is irrelevant because a number of theologies do quite nicely without it. I guess you forgot to exclude that, too, from your usage of "theology".

We are discussing whether you are a bad scientist if you consider god's existence a scientific question instead of a purely philosophical one, not whether philosophy is obsolete or devoid of content.

Good! Then we can agree that Newton, R.A. Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Francisco Ayala and Ken Miller are all good scientists who never did that and it is not "accomodationism" to acknowledge them and point them out and what that may imply about the "compatibility" of science and religion.

I am referring to actual accomodationists

Ah, you have a definition of that term, then? It seems to get thrown around a lot at people who argue like Massimo and I do. If you can show some authoritative source, it would end the confusion when you use it. And while you're at it, please define "faithiest."

A Faithist, as you put it, John, may begin from the premise that anything in the universe, small scale or large, that has the appearance of organization probably is in fact organized (and not just appearing to be) and that it is not then termed NATURAL whether on a human scale or even in other aspects of the universe that we cannot tell if intellegence had a part in or not.

Organization in any form is indicative of something "UNnatural" and quite likely is just flat out SUPERnatural.

that does not make any sense any more. You seem to want to be offended by some slight or other that some people may have directed at you in some discussion somewhere, but I do not see how that justifies your hostility towards me. I have, just to take an example at random, never in my life used the word "faitheist". I have also made it clear that Massimo is not a accommodationist as far as I understand the debate around accommodationism. Please take a deep breath, or perhaps direct your "bullcrap" - exclamations at somebody who has actually deserved your ire.

I'm confused about what accomodationism has to do with philosophy. Is someone suggesting that we actually adopt a less definitive belief than what we believe? That's nonsense. If I happen to be a strong atheist, I'm a strong atheist, and political expediency isn't going to change my mind.

For what it's worth, I think the division between strong and weak atheism, as well as the division between philosophical and methodological naturalism, is so fuzzy that the debate hardly matters at all. In truth, just about every atheist is both a strong and weak atheist. I am certain that all gods with internally contradictory definitions do not exist as described. Strong atheism. I am uncertain whether there is a definition of god which could describe a possible being. Weak atheism.

Look, it's not necessary to be internally accomodationist just to get along with coalitions of moderate theists who also don't want theocracy. We just have to be... what's that word... tolerant!

I personally believe that the real accomodationists are moderate theists. I think they're culpable for the insanity foisted upon us by the Fundamentalist Right since Jerry Fallwell first reared his ugly head in public. They do not take stands against fundamentalism, but more importantly, they don't take stands against FAITH, which is the real demon in the culture war between religion and secularity.

But you know what? Put me in a room with a thousand moderate Christians who want to separate church and state completely, and I'll leave with brown stains all over my face from all the ass kissing. I'll tell them the truth -- I disagree with your religious beliefs, but you and I are on exactly the same page politically, and I'm perfectly happy to let you have your beliefs if you're perfectly happy to let me have mine.

You are probably right about the difficulty of coming to any resolution. Although we both are believers in rationality, the matters of the heart always seem to trump rationality.

Nevertheless, let me be foolish and make a couple of comments about the “multiverse.” This seems to be a concept that defies rationality:

1. No scientific evidence for even a second universe.

2. If there are multiple universes, what mechanism creates them? What keeps them from interacting and infecting with one another with their incompatible laws?

3. Why don’t we see newly formed universes blasting past us all the time?

4. You would need an infinite number of universes to come up with this one by chance. You then would need an infinite amount of time to generate this infinite number of universes, and infinite time is logically incoherent.

5. It is far more reasonable to posit ONE supremely adequate causal Agent to explain not only the universe, but also the myriad other things that naturalism strains at – origins of life, the cell DNA, consciousness, laws, freewill… God sharpens Occam’s razor.

I'll tell them the truth -- I disagree with your religious beliefs, but you and I are on exactly the same page politically, and I'm perfectly happy to let you have your beliefs if you're perfectly happy to let me have mine.

What's so hard about that?

I should perhaps let that rest, because I do not think that this post was about the accommodationism debate anyway, but well. As far as my understanding goes, there are two criticism from the "purist" side: (1) that certain "accommodationists" like Mooney & Kirshenbaum think those who are convinced that science and religion are incompatible should shut up about it lest they antagonize possible liberal believers and drive them into the arms of the fundies, which is perceived as an attempt to silence an honest opinion; (2) that certain "accommodationists" like Eugenie Scott want to have scientific organizations take essentially a theological position, like the one that evolution is god's tool to achieve his ends, to appease the believers. The counterargument being of course that something like that is not what a scientific organization is for. PZ Myers, for example, explicitly wrote that he does not want them to actively fight religion, but they should also not promote a theological position - they should say nothing on the matter and just stick to promoting science itself.

"Put me in a room with a thousand moderate Christians who want to separate church and state completely, and I'll leave with brown stains all over my face from all the ass kissing."

The Catholic Church initiated that, the idea that the sacred ought to be separate from the secular. One of many heresies propagated and proliferated by the RCC. I guess the Catholic Church is for you then. I'm sure they'd put up with all kinds of kissing of behinds there.

Tolerance is not to be the RULE of THUMB in finding out what is real in the world TRUTH is. If tolerance is your measuring stick then emotions CLEARLY rule your world. I'd FAR rather have your sincere anger and irritation any day than your toleration because I might give assent to do something half way.

That would just be FAKE and POINTLESS not to mention a true waste of time.

Caliana, your grasp of the history of Christianity and the relationships between its branches, not to mention the provenance of Christian scripture, is obviously as bad, if not worse (if that's possible), than your grasp of evolutionary biology. I will be blunt: you are self-righteously casting aspersions out of ignorance and hatred. This does not speak well of you, and I really don't think Christ would approve of you doing so in his name. You should be ashamed of yourself.

If a 900-ft Jesus appears in London miraculously, yes I would give atheism a second thought. Why is this naive? I don't get it. If big foot appears in London, it would disproves a-bigfootism, wouldn't it?

What a debate! Religious claims are simply nonsensical and thus not amenable to scientific inquiry.

How would you determine the truth value of "the present king of France is bald"?

How would you determine the truth value of "the world was created by god last Thursday, and he arranged it this way just to test our faith"?

Last-Thurdaysm is paradigmatic of religious and mythological stories: they seek to stop the arrogant presumtuous impertinent curiosity of the scientific minded and make us all into abject miserable and meek subhumans. It's the definition of surrendering your reason, pure slavery of the mind.

M: .."your grasp of the history of Christianity and the relationships between its branches, not to mention the provenance of Christian scripture, is obviously as bad, if not worse (if that's possible), than your grasp of evolutionary biology."

Feel free to deliver a better one, Mel. I would always gladly welcome a more accurate view of the world, wouldn't you? I'm not just being a snot. I really want to know what your specific problem is with my theology. Are you Catholic?

Caliana, did you read my entire post? Did you notice that I said personal belief is separate from political affiliation?

I guess it must be nice to live in a world where everybody gets to have their way exactly like they want it, but in the world I live in, there are lots of groups who don't exactly agree with each other, and if you're ever going to get anything you want, you have to compromise. If I have to join political hands with moderate Christians to get complete separation of church and state, then I'm going to do it. I'll still be a strong atheist, and I'll still believe moderates enable fundamentalists, but by golly, my country will be a better place to live with my personal beliefs.

I've been around this blog since the first posts (actually, even before that in a way), and what I like best about Cal's posts is that they make reading the comments much faster; I just skip her posts, and those by people who seem to be undertaking the Sisyphean task of answering them.

Now, after quite a few of his posts read, I'm doing the same to Mann's World's posts and responses to them. After a while, there's no point wasting time with people impervious to basic logic, rudimentary critical thinking, and reasoning. Gotta give it to him though, he does write much better than Cal and is much more able to stay on topic.

Even then I couldn't find time to read all posts here. Popular joint.

Anyway, this whole discussion reminds me of this little movie scene. SPLITTERS! Do we need any more in-fighting, dammit? It's hard enough to be the most despised minority as it is, innit? Are you all so jealous of the faith-heads that you feel the need to have schisms, too? "Accomodationists", "confrontationists", "histrionicists", "numbypumbies"...

Whatever. My bad-humored opinions for today, which are the most important after all, are that:

-Many of you seem to be using the word "science" in two different ways: the methodology of science, or scientifically-derived knowledge. These are two different things, and I guess it's not a good idea to mix them when discussing whether science and religion (which? whose?) are compatible.

-I do think science (the metodology) is completely incompatible with religion. And with art, for that matter. And with politics. Aesthetics. Figure skating. Heavy metal music. Etc. etc.

-I don't think that the question of whether science (the individual facts derived from the method) is compatible with religion makes any sense. Unless you define very well which specific version of religious belief you are talking about. But in any case that is useless, because one can always make up a religion (e.g. Last Thursdayism, which I'm seriously thinking of joining) that is compatible with any and all facts -- but not with the method -- of science. Being so vacuous that you don't even sound like you're sober (some posts above) is a good way of achieving that, too.

-And yes, as someone mentioned above, it means nothing that some scientists are/were (or not) also believers. Humans are hardly known for being rational. Just ask any Vulkan.

I don't think that the question of whether science (the individual facts derived from the method) is compatible with religion makes any sense. Unless you define very well which specific version of religious belief you are talking about. But in any case that is useless, because one can always make up a religion (e.g. Last Thursdayism, which I'm seriously thinking of joining) that is compatible with any and all facts -- but not with the method -- of science.

And this would be Massimo's argument, as far as I understand*. So far so good. The problem is, however, that none of the people he criticizes actually say what he pretends they say. First of all, the acknowledgment that Last Thursdayism cannot be rejected is implicit in everything a scientist says anyway. The same is when a scientist says that the autism-vaccination connection is disproved. You can get all philosophical on them an say that there can never be a 100% disprove, only that it has failed to be proved, or you could always use some ad-hoc hand-waving speculation that cannot be addressed with scientific tests but only with philosophy-based ideas, but by that measure nothing can be said by any scientist on any subject. The god question is not at all as special in that regard as Massimo claims.

But even worse for his argument, they always take care to specify that they cannot address and do not care about Last Thursdayism - they explicitly say and write the opposite of what Massimo claims they do.

So in my eyes, yes, this is completely superfluous infighting, but you would have to address that charge at Massimo, for the people he criticizes for not acknowledging philosophy in every second sentence agree completely with him on the essentials anyway.

* While the actual "accommodationists" like to pretend that the method is compatible with faith based on the argument you reject in your last paragraph.

Given how you seem to be quite proud in making broad, often hateful statements based on ignorance, indeed quite proud ignorance, I really doubt that you are always open to learning. However, I will briefly point out that my earlier statement came from the following facts easily ascertained from even cursory study of the history of Christianity: 1. Neither Catholics, nor Eastern Orthodox, nor any other group in Christianity worship either the saints or Mary. The proper term for the regard held toward saints is veneration, as worship is an attitude due only to God. The major churches have been quite clear about this for close to two thousand years (actually since there was really only one church since this doctrine developed prior to the major schisms). Your characterization is a gross distortion based on ignorance and prejudice. 2. The veneration of the saints and of Mary began very, very early on in the development of Christianity, and is in evidence by the end of the first century CE. Granted, Mary is afforded more respect in modern Catholicism than she was in those days. The modern attitude developed in the Middle Ages among the common people because during the Dark Ages the Western conception of Christ had become so stern and forbidding that he was seen as too unapproachable. 3. The Bible as it is now known in its present canon, was not compiled and formalized until the late fourth century, CE, under the guidance of St. Jerome and authority of Pope Damasus I (technically at the time, though, the title wasn't pope, but Patriarch of Rome). 4. Given these facts and your assertion that the veneration of the saints and of Mary makes the Catholic Church apostate and un-Christian, then the Bible itself is necessarily an un-Christian that should not be accepted. See, Caliana, your position is untennable. I hope you will realize that knowledge is important because it can undermine the misconceptions that underlie hateful positions, and is therefore the greatest antidote to hatred. You might want to question your certainties lest they lead you to be even more hurtful than you have been.

And though it is irrelevant, for the record, no, I am not Catholic. I am a Unitarian-Universalist who is also an atheist. However, I have studied a great deal of the history of Christianity because it is quite fascination. Also, though I could not believe as Catholics do, I have great respect and regard for Catholicism, as well as Eastern Orthodoxy. There is much to both that is quite interesting and intellectually invigorating. Incidentally, I gather you are Protestant of some flavor. I think you would find it interesting that there are some conservatives among the Orthodox who regard all Protestants as odd Catholics, as all Protestantism ultimately springs from Catholicism, and thus all Protestants share in what the Orthodox regard the same basic errors that led to the Great Schism of the eleventh century. Interestingly, even the most conservative Orthodox generally regard Catholics and Protestants as in error about certain beliefs, but certainly not apostates. In short, they show a greater greatness of heart than you have. There is opportunity there for you to learn a thing or two if you are so willing.

Mel: "Given these facts and your assertion that the veneration of the saints and of Mary makes the Catholic Church apostate and un-Christian, then the Bible itself is necessarily an un-Christian that should not be accepted."

Implicit in your outline of the chronology of church(es) here is that these churches somehow validate the existence of the Bible not the other way around. Precisely the opposite is true. Churches would have never formed, much less organized without the Bible. The Greek Orthodox Church is particularly BAD (and yes I said BAD) about giving all credit to the church for its own existence and for the very fact that there is a Bible. Forget that all writers of the Bible were Jewish, spare one. Forget that the original Church was mainly Jewish. And on and on.

For you to suggest that there is some kind of legitimate unity (based on the Bible) among the Catholic or Orthodox Churches is rather hard to even take seriously. Many splits in Roman Catholic Church (the Greek Orthodox came from one of those). The Greek Orthodox church as well relies heavily on commentary of ancient Church fathers not the Bible ITSELF. KEY POINT. The Catholic Church also appeals to the need for many practices not deemed necessary by the Bible.

In short, both denoms behave and think very humanistically. They are very MAN centered and that's likely why you think you could find agreement with them.

Those are the grounds by which I would reject both of those church's doctrine(s). Unloving? Compared to what? A humanistic man centered doctrine?

I'm sorry, but your position is wholly unsupportable with anything even vaguely resembling actual history. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. There was no single, commonly accepted Biblical canon prior to the Vulgate assembled under St. Jerome (Just as there was no single, completely commonly accepted Jewish canon until the late first century CE). Indeed, one of the reasons why the church moved to put out a formal canon with the force of official apostolic authority was that, in one's absence, there were a great many different canons being promulgated, some of which were assembled with distinctly different theological intents. And beyond that, people were still writing and promulgating scripture at the time. All of this is history. You can't change it, and to deny it requires either ignorance or willful self-deception. I beg you, actually study the history of Christianity before forming your opinions of it. For that matter, you might want to actually investigate the actual body of writings of the churches you so scorn. You could learn a great deal, and perhaps lay down some of your hatred. Only good could come from that.

Got here a bit late, but I (you were talking to me, right Massimo?) was asked to chime in, and I never decline an invitation.

I'm solidly on the purist side (a term that deliberately conjures associations with fundamentalists!), and find all of your I'm-a-philosopher-now pretensions tiresome.

"Contrary to what many people think" Why do you get to tell people they're wrong?

"The fight for a true separation of church and state" What is this true separation? Most of this debate is about the teaching of evolution, accommodationists want to keep theistic evolutionists' support on pragmatic grounds, purists think the principal of materialistic evolution is more important as a principal - and the US can actually get there, too.

Why not London? "Interesting ... esteemed colleagues scoff" Such a nice euphemism and flowery prose! I'm on your side now!

Just "a moment of serious reflection" is what's needed? How could Coyne and Dawkins not have time for that? Ingrates!

In fact, the common argument of the purist side is that there is no evidence for Noah's flood. End of story. Btw, scientists (who are not also philosophers) think pretty much everything philosophers of science do is funny - whether or not Popper is involved. I am disappointed you didn't bring up Kuhn however.

"What are the epistemic limits of science, and do they somehow constitute a problem for the scientific endeavor?" With such a leading question, I presume you have an answer. Do tell.

A new word has entered the atheist vocabulary of late: “accommodationist.” It is meant as a derogatory term toward those atheists and assorted rationalists who try to extend a metaphorical olive branch to moderate religionists and find common ground against the real danger, fundamentalism (of any kind, religious or not).

That's a nice strawman, but we should make a proper definition of terms. From Austin Dacey:

"I have a name for the broad thesis that there exist important conflicts between science and religion: I call it agonism. Those who accept agonism—and also wish to publicly discuss such conflicts—are agonists. The view that there exist no important conflicts between science and religion I call accommodationism. Those who either recognize no conflicts between religion and science, or who recognize such conflicts but are disinclined to discuss them publicly, I call accommodationists."

I am more and more worried by this atheist agenda. I grew up an atheist, but rejected it when I found philosophy, or more specifically, skeptical inquiry. The assertion that there is no deity is no more a scientific claim than its opposite. Both seem non-falsifiable to me, and their proponents both come off like fundamentalists when they claim absolute certainty. How would Dawkins reply?

Oh for Athe's sake! Nobody is claiming absolute certainty. Theism means: I believe in at least one god. Atheism means: I do not believe in gods until there is good evidence for them. Agnosticism means: (I really, really want to stress the fact that we cannot prove a negative, but) I do not believe in gods until there is good evidence for them. For all practical purposes, atheism = agnosticism, unless you got a strong atheist on your hands, but not even Dawkins, Coyne or PZ Meyers are that, no matter what you may have come to believe. I don't know even one! At least based on their scientific training, the usual suspects at least cannot be.

The point of "New Atheist" (tm) "scientist-ists" or "purists" or whatever is that the god question should not be privileged over other questions like "does vaccination cause autism" or "does AGW happen" or "can biological diversity best be explained by evolution" or "did aliens build the pyramids".

Yes, you can retreat to a Last Thursdayism god, it is unfalsifiable, we know already! But you can also claim aliens build the pyramids and arranged everything precisely so that their interference on earth cannot be detected at all. Is that a sensible suggestion? Does Massimo constantly harangue egyptologists because they arrogantly reject von-Daenikenism without studying philosophy for it? I don't think so. Do you lambaste egyptologists for being "absolutely certain" and having an "anti-Daeniken agenda"? I sincerely hope not. Again: Everything a scientist ever says is meant to be understood with the corollary "as far as scientific evidence goes", and no respectable atheist scientist would ever pretend or has ever pretended to be able to disprove Last Thursdayism. They only, and correctly, claim to be able to disprove the god >99.999% of believers actually believe in, and only beyond reasonable (!) doubt, and only based on the criteria that every. single. other. scientific question is judged on.

I am comforted to hear that nobody is claiming absolute certainty. I still find it somewhat fundamentalist to claim to be able to disprove the existence of god (as far as is metaphysically possible). I hope you can understand my confusion regarding the distinction between atheists and agnostics, given Oxford English Dictionary's descriptions of the terms.

(agnostic: noun a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God.atheism: noun the belief that God does not exist.)

Perhaps the debate would be further clarified for all involved in so-called atheists would refer to themselves as agnostics. I believe discussion of the existence of god is just as far outside scientific inquiry as Daenikenism. This is the point that people like Dawkins should be stressing if they want to protect public education in science and skeptical inquiry.

I simply reject that you can provide evidence of any sort to disprove the existence of god. Again, I am not yet convinced that there is a meaningful distinction between being >99.999% certain and absolutely certain.

I still find it somewhat fundamentalist to claim to be able to disprove the existence of god [...] I simply reject that you can provide evidence of any sort to disprove the existence of god. Again, I am not yet convinced that there is a meaningful distinction between being >99.999% certain and absolutely certain.

A god that created the world without leaving any evidence for that creation, and that never ever interferes with it is irrefutable. It is also irrelevant, to both atheists and theists, so who cares? On the other hand, a god that is claimed to have left a signature of creation in the world is refutable, and to our current best scientific understanding refuted. A god that has bestowed us with an immaterial soul that codes our memories or character traits is refutable, and to our current best scientific understanding refuted. A god that answers prayers is refutable, and to our current best scientific understanding refuted. A god that has provided humankind with a special place in the universe is refutable, and to our current best scientific understanding refuted. Etc., pp.

In all cases: refuted to the exact same degree as is the idea of little green from Mars having built the pyramids. Not more, and not less. This is one of the points I am trying to get across, unsuccessfully so far it seems: if you criticize atheists for claiming to be able to disprove the Abrahamic concept of god, then you will also have to criticize the egyptologists for disproving von Daeniken, pharmacologists for disproving vaccination-autism connection, chemists for disproving phlogiston, evolutionary biologists for disproving Lamarckism, etc., and accuse all of them of "fundamentalism", as you write, or arrogance and insufficient acknowledgment of philosophy, as Massimo insists. You see how ridiculous it gets? This whole discussion is nothing but an exercise in privileging religion over other areas of inquiry! Why don't you go ahead and complain to all scientific journals that they cannot really know anything, that they are all fundamentalist about their biology, geology, anthropology, physics, etc.? Do it, it would at least be consistent.

atheism: noun the belief that God does not exist

I also believe that gods do not exists; that is still not claiming complete certainty.

And no, I do not let you tell me how I will call myself, and I assume Dawkins also would not care about what you think what he should be stressing. Do you honestly want egyptologists to open every public lecture with a few words on how von Daeniken's lunatic ideas are irrefutable? If there is no evidence for something, that's it as far as science goes. Daeniken deserves to be laughed out of the room, and sorry, the same goes for the idea that some God character will give you eternal life if you say certain magic words.

Public education in science and skeptical inquiry also means explaining what I just did, although you do not have to make it the centerpiece of conversation, of course. But if directly asked by a believer whether their belief conflicts with science, I would first ask what exactly they believe in; and if it turns out not to be Last Thursdayism or a completely metaphorical exercise in relabeling like "god is the entirety of the physical laws in this universe", as it is likely to do, then sorry, I will have to answer as I did above: this god is in conflict with the current state of science. Saying so is honest, not saying so would not be public education in science and skeptical inquiry, but a tactical lie.

Could you condescend less?

This is not condescension, but exasperation at having to explain the exact same thing all over and over and over again, even in the same comment thread.

It is exasperating. The New Atheist position is that scientific findings discredit the existence of God to such extent that belief is unreasonable. That's not equivalent to "Science disproves God," nor does it imply absolute certainty.

"...if you criticize atheists for claiming to be able to disprove the Abrahamic concept of god, then you will also have to criticize the egyptologists for disproving von Daeniken...If there is no evidence for something, that's it as far as science goes." I agree with this statement. Perhaps people are inclined to privilege belief in god over other areas of inquiry simply because religion has been a useful insitution in the development of human civilization (thought its harm may outweigh its good at this point).

You are probably referring to epigenetics and similar recent discoveries. They are intriguing, but they will not change the fact that the fundamental driver of evolution is natural selection. Stretching your neck to reach higher leaves will not give you inheritable longer necks, and how Lamarckism would be supposed to work for plants or bacteria is even less clear.

I guess I want to say to the scientist atheist who makes a fuss about belief in god being unreasonable, "This is obvious, can you go back to biology now please, and stop privileging religion in your scientific inquiry by giving it any attention at all?"

Maybe this is another of his key ideas, but what you first learn about Lamarck and what you first think of when you hear the name is the hypothesis that organisms would acquire inherited characters from selectively training specific abilities or body parts. This is what I was referring to.

Nevertheless, I still have certain problems with your view that what you make sound like the organisms' purposeful actions has such an important role in shaping evolution, maybe simply because I am a botanist. Plants do not have a lot of options here, they cannot even influence where they germinate. There does not seem to be much space for anything except mutation and selection.

Well, this is certainly not the forum for that kind of discussion, and anyway, the specific examples are not so important, they are legion. Let us take aether from physics instead; or the claim that the time between 3000 and 1000 BCE is completely invented, and all historians are either too dumb to realize it or part of the conspiracy. No joke: somebody actually tried to sell me that idea very recently. How do you disprove something like that, if your partner in conversation considers all evidence to the contrary fabricated? Just as impossible to disprove as a hidden god, and exactly as reasonable, not more, not less.

We can't be certain that in the distant past there was never some prior purpose that affects our present, but it's clear by any measure of our logic that it's not controlling of our future.

That is as vague as it sounds. We also can't be certain of a lot of things which may have happened in the past. That is why we rely on evidence, which is what Mintman, I believe, was getting at. Not assertions which may or may not be 'provable'.

I would like to see these tests you speak of. Can you point me to the work being done in this area?

I am more than willing to grant you the possibilities you speak of, but until the evidence is strong, its pie in the sky. I would also posit to you that things like 'purpose' and 'intent' are things concerning human beings and how they understand the universe, not the universe itself.

Purpose and intent are the "things" that denote the difference between life and non-life.

Really? I thought it was 'things' like reproduction and homeostasis...

The reason I remain unconvinced, biases aside, is that I think you are kind of working backwards. Things don't evolve backwards. You know this, yet when you consider what are present forms in relation to this, you are mistaking what you see as 'goals' (intent/purpose). This is an error in judgment. Do correct me if this understanding is mistaken.

The fact that there is what seems to be a trial and error process that we can relate to in terms of understanding what a trial and error process is doesn't say anything about the systems themselves - it says more about the interests of the observer than what is being observed - in this case what is being projected onto the observed.

I'll look into this further per your clue, but that is my bird's eye view thus far on the matter.

ciceronianus said...e.g., Aquinas, when he borrowed from Aristotle the prime mover proof (like so much else) and then claimed, having come to the prime mover, "and this we call God." It's a bit of a jump from a "first cause" to the Catholic God.

That passage in the Summa theolgica came in a digest compendium intended for theology students. "Details to follow," as it were, hundreds of pages of details. Also, he went on at greater length in the Summa contra gentiles.

Empiricism helps. It really is helpful to go to the actual data; that is, to what people actually wrote or said or to scholarly analyses of it. Relying on stereotypes or poses leads can distort matters.

Basically, once you have gotten to an Unmoved Mover as existing by necessity, that mover must be a being of "pure act"; that is, of no potential. Thus, it cannot be other than what it is and its essence is its existence. You can call it "Existence Itself," if you like. If it could talk, it would call itself "I Am."

From that, you deduce that there can be only one such being. (If there were two, there would have to be some difference between them, but then one would be in potency to something actual in the other, and hence not be a being of pure act.) It must be unchanging. (Change is a motion from potentially something to actually being that thing.) It cannot then be material. (Matter is the principle of change.) Since there is only one such being, it must be the source of all natural powers. (This is what is meant by "all power-full." It does not mean a Marvel Comics superhero.) Since rationality is one such natural power, there must be something in the being of Existence Itself that is analogous to rationality, and hence it is a "person" in some analogous sense. And so on.

It really does all fall out logically, once you get to the necessary being of an unmoved mover or uncaused cause.

Also, it would help to understand how distinct Aquinas' argument was from Aristotle; how he synthesized the argument in the Physics with that in the Metaphysics; balanced ibn Rushd as against ibn Sinna, incorporated Maimonides, Adelard of Bath, and of course his own teacher, Albert the Great.

"It is therefore, causally that Scripture has said that earth brought forth the crops and trees, in the sense that it received the power of bringing them forth."-- Augustine of Hippo, De Genesi ad literam, Book V Ch. 4:11

Another point I'd like to make is that last-thursdayism can be negated by last-thursdayism. When it is acceptable to invoke last-thursdayism as valid argument, it also is acccpetable to invoke a non-evidence-based Evil Entity Argument like: the evil entity that wants you to obey him has installed last-thursdayism in your mind. In other words, where nonsense is allowed, nonsense will be met.

In my opinion it is not necessary that science can make absolute statements about reality. The concept of absolute truth is a sky hook that begs the question: the claim to know absolute truth presupposes that there is absolute meaning in the human concept of "absolute truth". But a human concept is not necessarily absolute. Science as a human endeavour gives us a degree of truth that is understandable to man, verifiable tentative truth. It does not even make the claim to compete with absolute claims. Religious claims are absolute and unverified. We should not mix the two.

And indeed a claim for the benevolent divine master of the universe formulated in the last-thursdayism idiom could ultimately be true, but so could be the claim that some evil entity tricks us into thinking that we should worship him, it or her. The very meaning of the words we use cannot be build on a fabulated reality but only on what we are able to understand. Science is not about ultimate truth but about understandable truth.

There seems to be some confusion on the definition of accomodationism itself. Elsewhere on the net I've found a definition of accomodationist as "a person who does not believe in a complete separation of church and state" (e.g. see wiki.answers.com and mwww.bigissueground.com/atheistground/peters-churchstate.shtml). But in your podcast you seem to mean "a person who does not believe in a complete separation of faith and science". With this definition Ken Miller would certainly fall in the category so why you exclude him in the podcast escapes me.

It seems obvious to me that with this definition faith and empirical science certainly exclude one another since empirical science does not allow untestable articles of faith as epistemologically valid entries.

Another remarkable thing I noted was that Massimo around 6m20s in the podcast stated thatnobody makes the claim that science cannot reject specific claims:"Even in the accomodationist camp nobody makes the claim that science can not reject specific...eh claims, empirical claims by religious people. So, for instance, ehh..if you say that the earth is just 6000 years old, than you're just wrong, geology tells us otherwise, it's billions oy years old."

But science cannot circumvent a last-thursdayism variant that states that god made it look like the earth is just 6000 years old, on the same basis as science cannot circumvent the bigger religious claims accomponied by the last-thursdayism cop-out. It is not at all relevant whether or not Massimo knows of someone making that claim. The religious could make that claim tomorrow and empirical science would fail to disprove it.

Of course the addition of the word "empirical" by Massimo in above statement is telling. For an empirical claim would mean that there is emipirical evidence for the claim. And no-one thusfar has found any empirical evidence for religious claims. But a religious claim stated in a last-thursdayism way is - almost by definition I'd say - essentially non-empirical. So there we have the clean divide between the empirical realm and the faith-based realm. It seems to me this only supports the assertion that science and faith as epistemological frameworks are not compatible at all and that accomodationism is false.

In my opinion the divide coincides with the divide between reason and unreason. One could easily argue that last-thursdayism denies such principles as coherence of statements in a framework. Coherence and consistency are not necessarily supported in an epistemological framework build from last thursdayism-like statements. In such a framework one could easily argue that electrons and electricity do not really exist but are the result of invisible green men making it 'look like'. In such a framework, which on the face of it is a rather big word for the idea, everything goes. Indeed in such a framework it is easy to deny whatever empirical results you can come up with. This clearly is the realm of lunacy amd fabulation. Moreover, meaning and language would fail us in such a framework since language is based on relative coherence. So the basic question is on what basis the religious believer of this sort and the scientist agree to communicate at all.

But the default assumption that only measurable claims about empirical bodies qualifies as knowledge may not be warranted. Religious claims are, in large measure, unverifiable in terms of the scientific method. But so are aesthetic claims, claims of justice, and so forth. Anyone who supposes that Mozart's Jupiter symphony is nothing but (air) molecules in motion has missed everything important about it.

No science [in the broad sense of "knowledge"] is competent to explore its own preconceptions. Natural science, for example, cannot establish that an empirical universe exists. It cannot prove that the universe is lawful, or that these laws are accessible to human reason. All these things must be assumed. Taken on faith, as it were. That they seem reasonable is due to the fact that Western civilization has supposed so for more than a thousand years. But there have been times and places where such assumptions were not made. And it seemed quite reasonable to those folks to do so.

Many claims of religion cannot be scientifically proven; but then the claims of mathematics cannot be scientifically proven (in the modern sense of empirical natural science.) No amount of empirical measurement of circular objects will establish the irrationality of pi, because any empirical measurement is necessarily finite. That is why mathematics is not a natural science. It's subject matter is the abstracted properties of ideal objects rather than the abstracted properties of physical objects. It so happens that the claims of religion are for the most part metaphysical, and their proofs are closer in spirit to mathematical proofs than to empirical proofs.

However, religion sometimes makes claims about the physical world. The early and medieval Christians for example claimed that all human beings of whatever race were descended from the same ancestor. They claimed that the universe had had a beginning in time, and would have an end. They claimed that space and time themselves were not absolute but a consequence of the existence of matter. They believed that moral decisions were dependent on the habituation of a "second nature." They believed that human beings were by nature selfish [original sin]. Nowadays we talk about big bangs, and "the vulcanization" of neural pathways in the brain, and about "the selfish gene," but pretty much all these things have been borne out.

Other claims proved not so; but these matters were not matters of faith, but simply the conclusions of the scientists of the era. As Aquinas noted, the astronomers might have a system [Ptolemaic geocentrism] that explained the observable phenomena, but some other explanation might be devised in the future that would do as well or better. It was not a matter of faith such as was the belief that all humans were members of the same species.

They further claimed that the universe was real and was rationally arranged, as a direct consequence of the sort of God they believed in. And from synderesis they concluded that human beings could reach correct conclusions about the moral and physical world through the use of reason. Their long debates on the persons of the trinity hammered out for both Byzantine and Western Christendom the notion of personhood that informs all of our jurisprudence and theories of rights.

Lastthursdayism suffers from being bad theology, which is what you get when amateurs try to do it. Doing good metaphysics requires logical coherence. Typically, it makes no predictions about the empirical world; but its logical proofs generally start from some empirical fact about the world.

I realize I’m very late to this, but I must purge some of the nonsense posted. If anybody is still monitoring…

From @Mann’sWord

“[T]here are belief systems that believe that there is a stable, uniform, knowable and rational world out there that welcomes investigation. Both Christianity and Atheism fall into this category.”

Realizing that adverbs usually indicate the writer doubts his own position: Absolutely, totally, utterly, spectacularly wrong.

As with all theism, Christianity mocks the idea of a stable, uniform, knowable rational world.

In a stable, knowable, rational world: Our universe is approximately 13.5 billion years old. Female humans are not made from a male’s rib. Snakes and burning bushes do not talk. Two of every animal can’t fit on a single boat. The sun does not stand still in the sky. People can’t live for days in the stomach of a sea creature. People can’t live for 800 years. The dead do not come back to life. People aren’t spontaneously transported into other dimensions. It is wrong to persecute consenting adults for where they put their penises, and only homicidal maniacs engage in mass slaughter. These are the rules of a rational world.

The Christian world is one in which God makes up the rules, isn’t subject to them, and can ignore or change them at his whim. And according to the Bible, he does so in ways that anyone with a 21st-century sensibility should reject as arbitrary, capricious, cruel and just plain crazy.

Christians often assert the world doesn’t make sense without God. To the contrary. In a Christian world, “sense” depends only on the Mind of God, which he is free to change based on…whatever. It is nonsensical to talk of “sense” in a Christian world. Or “knowledge” or “reason.” The Mysterious Mind of God results in a world in which man can, by definition, know NOTHING.

You contend that “Science should have something to say about God, and God about science.” I look forward to the day God actually weighs in on the matter. Perhaps He can present at the next TED Conference? Until then, I protest the scientifically ignorant men and women who purport to speak on His behalf.

I realize I’m very late to this, but I must purge some of the nonsense posted. If anybody is still monitoring…

From @Mann’sWord

“[T]here are belief systems that believe that there is a stable, uniform, knowable and rational world out there that welcomes investigation. Both Christianity and Atheism fall into this category.”

Realizing that adverbs usually indicate the writer doubts his own position: Absolutely, totally, utterly, spectacularly wrong.

As with all theism, Christianity mocks the idea of a stable, uniform, knowable rational world.

In a stable, knowable, rational world: Our universe is approximately 13.5 billion years old. Female humans are not made from a male’s rib. Snakes and burning bushes do not talk. Two of every animal can’t fit on a single boat. The sun does not stand still in the sky. People can’t live for days in the stomach of a sea creature. People can’t live for 800 years. The dead do not come back to life. People aren’t spontaneously transported into other dimensions. It is wrong to persecute consenting adults for where they put their penises, and only homicidal maniacs engage in mass slaughter. These are the rules of a rational world.

The Christian world is one in which God makes up the rules, isn’t subject to them, and can ignore or change them at his whim. And according to the Bible, he does so in ways that anyone with a 21st-century sensibility should reject as arbitrary, capricious, cruel and just plain crazy.

Christians assert the world doesn’t make sense without God. To the contrary: In a Christian world, “sense” depends only on the Mind of God, which he is free to change based on…whatever. It is nonsensical to talk of “sense” in a Christian world. Or “knowledge” or “reason.” The Mysterious Mind of God results in a world in which man can, by definition, know NOTHING.

You contend that “Science should have something to say about God, and God about science.” I look forward to the day God actually weighs in on the matter. Perhaps He can present at the next TED Conference? Until then, I protest the scientifically ignorant men and women who purport to speak on His behalf.

I realize I’m very late to this, but I must purge some of the nonsense posted. If anybody is still monitoring…

From @Mann’sWord

“[T]here are belief systems that believe that there is a stable, uniform, knowable and rational world out there that welcomes investigation. Both Christianity and Atheism fall into this category.”

Realizing that adverbs usually indicate the writer doubts his own position: Absolutely, totally, utterly, spectacularly wrong.

As with all theism, Christianity mocks the idea of a stable, uniform, knowable rational world.

In a stable, knowable, rational world: Our universe is approximately 13.5 billion years old. Female humans are not made from a male’s rib. Snakes and burning bushes do not talk. Two of every animal can’t fit on a single boat. The sun does not stand still in the sky. People can’t live for days in the stomach of a sea creature. People can’t live for 800 years. The dead do not come back to life. People aren’t spontaneously transported into other dimensions. It is wrong to persecute consenting adults for where they put their penises, and only homicidal maniacs engage in mass slaughter. These are the rules of a rational world.

The Christian world is one in which God makes up the rules, isn’t subject to them, and can ignore or change them at his whim. And according to the Bible, he does so in ways that anyone with a 21st-century sensibility should reject as arbitrary, capricious, cruel and just plain crazy.

Christians often assert the world doesn’t make sense without God. To the contrary. In a Christian world, “sense” depends only on the Mind of God, which he is free to change based on…whatever. It is nonsensical to talk of “sense” in a Christian world. Or “knowledge” or “reason.” The Mysterious Mind of God results in a world in which man can, by definition, know NOTHING.

You contend that “Science should have something to say about God, and God about science.” I look forward to the day God actually weighs in on the matter. Perhaps He can present at the next TED Conference? Until then, I protest the scientifically ignorant men and women who purport to speak on His behalf.

Mann’sWord"[T]here are belief systems that believe that there is a stable, uniform, knowable and rational world out there that welcomes investigation. Both Christianity and Atheism fall into this category."

TOFRegardless whether Christian religious beliefs are correct, it is a matter of historical fact that those beliefs included:a) Because "God created," the universe is objectively real. b) Because God is rational, that universe is rationally ordered. There are natural laws. c) Because God is unchanging and "true to his promises," those natural laws are stable. d) Because God endowed matter with natures capable of acting directly upon one another, those natural laws could be discovered by studying nature. e) Because God ordered the world "by number, weight, and measure," the world could be studied by numbering, weighing, and measuring things.f) Because God endowed man with reason and synderesis, that rational order was accessible to human reason. g) Because their scripture extolled knowledge of natural things as coming from God, the study of the natural world was a fit occupation for adults.

A thousand years of marinating in this world-view allows those who are its heir to suppose that it is a "natural" viewpoint. But it is not. Entire cultures worked on the assumption that the material world was an illusion. Ashari Islam rejected secondary causation; so what appears to be natural laws are only habits of God. The ancient Greeks believed in a multitude of gods unordered by any higher being, and so the idea of natural laws and a rational universe did not catch on. Trees had dryads; springs had nymphs. The stars were "alive, divine, and influential in human affairs." (We think the Greeks more rational than they were because medieval Christians preferentially copied & preserved rationalist writings.)

This can be learned if instead of reasoning a priori from what you belief "theism" must be, you resort to empirical evidence of what the Christians actually said and did. (E.g., Augustine, William of Conches, Adelard of Bath, Anselm of Canterbury, Michael the Scot, Thierry of Chartres, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Jean Buridan, Albert of Saxony, Robert Grosseteste, William of Heytesbury, Thomas Bradwardine, Nicolas Oresme, Nicholas of Cusa, et al.)

dbalmatFemale humans are not made from a male’s rib. Snakes and burning bushes do not talk. etc.

TOFAha! You have discovered that modern heretics who, influenced by the scientism, insist on reading their texts as if they were scientific-historical accounts of material facts are... fools. Yes, indeed. And Augustine of Hippo said so a millennium and a half ago.

Don't confusing incorrect conclusions reached by ancient scientists (and the relied upon by ancient writers for their imagery) with a lack of rationality. When Xenophanes observed marine fossils in the mountains of Greece, he rationally deduced that there had been a world-flood long ago - because he knew of no natural mechanism that could deposit marine life high in the mountains. + + +dbalmatonly homicidal maniacs engage in mass slaughter. These are the rules of a rational world.

TOFYou are confusing "rational" with "moral."

I'm sure the French Rationalists had rational reasons for the Terror; and the Allies for bombing Dresden and Tokyo.

dbalmatIt is nonsensical to talk of “sense” in a Christian world. Or “knowledge” or “reason.” The Mysterious Mind of God results in a world in which man can, by definition, know NOTHING.

TOFHistorically, that is contrary to fact. Recommended reading: Toby Huff, The Rise of Early Modern Science, Edward Grant, God and Resaon in the Middle Ages

You suggest I do not appreciate what “the Christians” actually said and did.

I did not intend to suggest that no individual Christian was ever rational. That said, a handful of theologians hardly constitute “the Christians.” Which is why the thrust of my points are not to individual practitioners, but to “Christianity.” Admittedly, countless schisms and sects demonstrate the concept of “Christianity” is quite malleable, but all versions hold certain core beliefs regarding allegedly factual events.

So those who believe in the literal truth of talking snakes are “fools." What did Hippo think about people who believe a man can literally rise from the dead and walk around for a few days before levitating into an unknown dimension? Did Hippo think that people who believe in the “scientific-historical” truth of the Resurrection and Ascension are fools? I’m pretty sure a lot of “the Christians," both past and present, would strongly protest.

And they would be correct to do so. Because if one miracle can be written off as metaphor, they all can, from creation straight through to eternal life through Christ. And one believes they are simply metaphors, then what is the point of calling oneself a “Christian” at all? There is no wisdom in the Bible that isn’t found elsewhere, while many cruelties and follies are exclusive to it. If the Bible is just another story, why isn’t it considered strictly in the same way as Moby Dick or Harry Potter? Why is Theology a separate discipline, as opposed to a single course in a Comparative Literature program?

Your list of “rational Christian beliefs” just emphasizes my point, because each begins with “Because God.” God is not demonstrated by logic and is immune to scientific proof. A belief in God is not rational. (Just as many of His alleged actions are those of an admittedly "jealous" madman.)

Further, even granting your “Because God,” if you understood the distinction you’d recognize that your list describes a "deistic," not a "theistic" world. I’m pretty sure “the Christians” would disagree with a suggestion that God set the universe running by rules He cannot change. (And if he can change them, then Christian natural laws are indeed a "habit of God.")

As to your suggestion that I am confusing “rational” with “moral”: Few things are more distressing than people who think that the two have nothing to do with each other. If the universe is rationally ordered and there are natural laws, and if we can posit that “moral laws” exist (and if we can’t "moral" is meaningless), why do you assume they are not also rationally ordered? Further, if a rational God makes rational laws, won't His moral laws be rationally ordered, too?

dbalmatWhat did Hippo [sic] think about people who believe a man can literally rise from the dead?

Sic: His name was Aurelius Augustinus (Augustine). As bishop of Hippo Regius, he gained the cognomen ex virtute Hipponensis, meaning "of Hippo." Hope that helps. Christians believed that Jesus was also God. God can be shown by logic to be a being whose essence is to exist. But you cannot kill Existence. Therefore, a man who is also God could "rise from the dead" and "ascend into heaven." I don't recommend that you try it, however. By its nature, it is not replicable. + + + dbalmatif one miracle can be written off as metaphor, they all can

Fundamentalists often say that - as if "some texts not literal" = "all texts not literal" or that there are no guidelines. For guidelines, see:http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1202.htm

dbalmatGod is not demonstrated by logic and is immune to scientific proof. A belief in God is not rational.

Scientific proof applies only to the measurable properties of material bodies. It does not apply to mathematics, justice, beauty, music, truth, etc. There is motion [or change] in the world. Nothing contingent can change itself, but must be changed by another. (b/c change is from "potentially X" to "actually X," but what exists potentially does not yet exist actually and cannot be the agent of its own existence.) In essentially ordered series, the power of B to move A depends on the concurrent existence of C moving B. In a golf swing: the club moves as it does because the hands are moving it right now. But the hands can move the club only because the arms are concurrently moving the hands. Arms <- shoulders <- muscles <- nerves <- motor neurons <- and so on. Such a sequence must have a first member. Now, the first mover must be pure actuality, no potency. (b/c if potency, then it could be moved to actual, but if moved it is not the first mover. QED, modus tollens.)Pure act exists necessarily, not contingently. It is Existence Itself. From this follows many conclusions: There can be only one such being. (b/c if two, there is a distinction: one lacks an X the other possesses. But a lack = a potency for X, and as above.) Thus, all causal chains originate in Existence Itself, including all powers of contingent beings. So: all-powerful. Including the rational powers, and so: a rational being, i.e., a person. And so we come to a personal God. Other logical consequences like immateriality, eternity, etc. are left as exercise for the reader. It's at least not irrational belief.

dbalmatI’m pretty sure “the Christians” would disagree with a suggestion that God set the universe running by rules He cannot change.

Your argument seems to be that the actual Christians did not believe as you think they should have. It's more that He will not change them b/c per Adelard of Bath, "He is true to His promises." But he could as you say, which is why the Christians came to believe that the natural world must be studied by empirical science.

That was specifically rejected by Nietzsche, Sartre, and the other atheists. Richard Rorty writes, "Anyone who thinks that there are well grounded ... algorithms for resolving moral dilemmas of this sort is still, in his heart, a theologian..."

Alex Rosenberg writes that naturalism denies the existence of objective moral value, of beliefs and desires, of the self, of linguistic meaning, and indeed of meaning or purpose of any sort. All attempts to evade this conclusion... inevitably fail, and we just have to learn to live with that. A belief in meanings and purposes is what puts us on a slippery slope to religion.

These threads always get fragmented, so let’s circle back, and try to make sure we’re on the same page. The way I see it, we're asking two main questions: (1) Does a god exist? (2) If so, is there any reason to think it’s the Christian God of the Bible? Can we agree on these two main questions? If not, please stop now and tell me what else you think we are or should be discussing.

QUESTION NUMBER ONE – Does a god exist?

Most of your post on this question is just a jumble of cribbed philosophical jargon and arbitrary, unsupported declarations. (Perhaps the most egregious: “such a sequence must have a first member.” Must? Why? Wait! Please don’t try to answer that! Just bear with me a moment.). I’ll let some other masochist pick it apart. Instead, I’ll focus on your primary claim.

If you want to abstract god to “Existence Itself,” defined as “a being [although that’s a loaded term] whose essence is to exist,” fine. I’ll concede Existence Itself exists.

Wow, that’s helpful.

No, wait, it’s not helpful at all - because nothing is inconsistent with Existence Itself. (Put another way, the only thing that would be inconsistent with Existence Itself would be Nonexistence Itself.) Which leads us to…

QUESTION NUMBER TWO – Is there any reason to think “Existence Itself” is the Christian God of the Bible?

If god is simply Existence Itself, why Jehova instead of Allah or Wakan-Tanka or Brahman? If Existence Itself can divide itself into the Trinity (one, but separate, whatever that can possibly mean), why not into any number of Gods? How are Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism or any other religion inconsistent with Existence Itself?

Anticipating an objection: Your argument that “all causal chains originate in Existence Itself” demonstrates a personal God is wrong, and inconsistent with what you’ve said previously. You’ve conceded the natural laws of the universe are rational. The natural laws of the universe are not personal. Blow up the Earth. No more persons. God’s natural laws continue. Therefore, a rational God does not demand a personal God.

So, no religion or conception of God, including an impersonal god, is inconsistent with Existence Itself.

Consequently, the question becomes “Is there any particular reason to believe “Christianity” is true?” Examining the Bible seems to be a sensible place to begin - on to Part 2!

You concede that we can deny the historic-scientific truth of some parts of the Bible. Your “guidelines” for figuring out which parts are true and which are not are not themselves set forth in the Bible. They are not “rules.” These “guidelines” are made up by people, and thus are wholly subjective. This is proven by the fact that the various denominations of Christianity do not agree on the scientific and historical accuracy of the various parts of Bible.

The point is this. Any reason to doubt the truth of any part of the Bible subjects all of its parts to doubt. (Of course, this is not to say there is no reason to think that any part of the Bible is true (e.g., I don’t doubt the historicity of Jesus.) And the parts that defy the known principles of physics, geology, biology, etc. are especially subject to doubt. Unfortunately, it is these parts that define "Christianity."

I ask the question again: Does being a “Christian” require one to believe that a man rose from the dead?

Jesus was certainly a man. If Jesus was “also” God (not to mention the Holy Ghost!), and God can’t be killed, then where is the “sacrifice” Christians revere so highly?

Forget Jesus, how about Lazarus? Was he also God? If the Lazarus story is another “foolish” fiction, maybe the rest of Jesus’ “miracles” are foolish fictions, too. If so, there is no reason to believe in his divinity. If you’re saying that Jesus/God can change the rules whenever and however he wants, and bring people back from the dead, you’re right back where this entire discussion started, i.e., my declaration that In a Christian World, Where God can Make up the Rules as He Goes, There Are No Rules.

How it must pain the mind to feel compelled to reconcile these notions!

Your attempt to impugn my argument by associating it with “fundamentalism” is precisely wrong. My point is that although fundamentalism is the only internally consistent approach to the Bible, it leads to truly irrational ideas. Anything other than fundamentalism requires people to pick and choose according to their subjective beliefs and values. (And in reality, fundamentalists must do this, too, though to a lesser degree.)

I will not address the hundreds of other specific inconsistencies, errors and absurdities that subject the Bible to attack. Rather, I will conclude this series of posts how I started, by demonstrating that you are apparently intentionally missing my points and trying to obfuscate, not clarify.

You: “That was specifically rejected by Nietzsche, Sartre, and the other atheists.”

Let's summarize:

You posited a rational God who, true to his nature, made a universe that is “rationally ordered.” For the sake of argument, I granted the existence of this God, and further assumed that in addition to natural laws, he enacted moral laws. I argued that any moral laws enacted by this rational God who created a “rationally ordered universe” should in turn be rational. If so, this would supporting my original contention that morality and rationality are and should be related.

Work the Rorty quote backwards: “Only theologians think there are well-grounded algorithms for resolving moral dilemmas.” In other words, only theologians beleive that there are rational moral laws. But you apparently don't think there are rational moral laws, so you apparently agree with "the atheists"?

This particular atheist thinks Rorty may be wrong; there may very well be rational moral laws that do not depend on a god.

My original point was that the moral laws of the Bible (e.g. “death penalty for working on Sunday”) are not well-grounded algorithms for resolving moral dilemmas. They are not rational. And the God of the Bible who propounded these laws is the “homicidal maniac” to whom I originally referred.

You parrot the words of the Big Names. Like the parrot, you have no idea what you are talking about.

dbalmat“[an essentially ordered] sequence must have a first member.” Must? Why?

Because in an essentially ordered sequence the subsequent agents do not possess causal power unless the prior agent is =concurrently= active. If there is no first mover, none of the subsequent movers would have the power to move. Even Dawkins, ill-informed as he is, recognizes that there cannot be a physically realized infinite regress.

Brahman? Is the essence of a rodeo bull its existence? "Allah" is simply the Syriac and Arabic word for God. It's not a personal name, and conceptually it is the same as the Jewish and Christian understanding. The term is used by Syriac-speaking Christians as well as by muslims. It is cognate with Hebrew Elohim. As I have heard the tale, when Moses asked the incorporeal God what his name was, he answered, "I am who am," which is as close to saying, "I am Existence Itself, dude."

If old "He IS" is a true thing, it would not be the least surprising if other peoples had a glimmering of the same concept.

dbalmatIf Existence Itself can divide itself into the Trinity (one, but separate, whatever that can possibly mean), why not into any number of Gods?

If a being of Pure Act is rational, it possesses something like intellect and will. Intellect is to know; will is to desire or love. So this God, as the subject of both predicates, both knows and loves. Absent creation, he knows and loves himself. But to know is to conceive, and conceptions are expressed in words; so as the object of knowing, God is called the Word and is the only-conceived. As the object of desire, he is called the Spirit and is said to "proceed" from the Father, as love reaches out and gathers the beloved to itself. But there is only one God; just as John Smith is John the Father vis a vis his kids, John the Son vis a vis his parents, and John the Lover vis a vis his wife. Anyone seeing John at the Little League game sees John the Father, for example. But since John is not Pure Act these different aspects of him are not fully actualized as persons in their own right.

There cannot logically be more than one God, although there may be any number of divine beings, as in Hinduism.

dbalmatYour “guidelines” for figuring out which parts are true and which are not are not themselves set forth in the Bible.

Why should they be? Only fundamentalists insist on that sort of recursion. Are Supreme Court interpretations included in the Constitution?

dbalmatThese “guidelines” are made up by people, and thus are wholly subjective. This is proven by the fact that the various denominations of Christianity do not agree on the scientific and historical accuracy of the various parts of Bible.

They are not subjective at all. They read the Bible in the light of their beliefs; they did not stumble across their beliefs while thumbing through a Bible. Since the collapse of Christendom we have Bill and Ted's Excellent Bible Shack and other such masters of exegesis; but excuse me if I don't take your folks seriously. There are different sects of quantum physics, too; but that doesn't mean they aren't on to something.

dbalmatAny reason to doubt the truth of any part of the Bible subjects all of its parts to doubt.

dbalmatDoes being a “Christian” require one to believe that a man rose from the dead? Jesus was certainly a man. If Jesus was “also” God (not to mention the Holy Ghost!), and God can’t be killed, then where is the “sacrifice” Christians revere so highly?

a) Of course it does and b) they spent a couple hundred years hashing it out what it meant for Jesus to be "fully man and fully God."

In the course of this, they hashed out what it meant to be a "person," with momentous consequences for Western law.

dbalmathow about Lazarus? Was he also God? [No. I have a friend who was raised from the dead, so I know it is not impossible.]

If the Lazarus story is another “foolish” fiction, maybe the rest of Jesus’ “miracles” are foolish fictions, too. [Fictions are not necessarily foolish. A fiction can be true without being factual. E.g., Beauty and the Beast.]

dbalmatIf you’re saying that Jesus/God can change the rules whenever and however he wants, and bring people back from the dead,

How does reviving someone clinically dead "change the rules"? If I have a character in a novel exclaim, "It ain't so!" have the rules of grammar become somehow moot? Am I simply making them up as I go along?

dbalmatYour attempt to impugn my argument by associating it with “fundamentalism” is precisely wrong. .... Anything other than fundamentalism requires people to pick and choose according to their subjective beliefs and values.

You espouse a rigorously fundamentalist perspective. All you manage to do is show that fundamentalism does not hold up -- which Augustine pointed out a millennium and a half ago -- and then take the fundamentalist stance against the Whore of Babylon for "picking and choosing." But that "anything other than fundamentalism" was the whole Church for well nigh 1800 years before modern fundamentalism came along.

Of course the Traditional church picked and chose. She picked and chose what books to include in the Bible in the first place. When agreement is hammered out by debate and consensus, it is not "subjective" like particle physics. It was only when the rise of science gave birth to fundamentalism that the notion became general that Bubba Smith could read a translation of an ancient text and know what it "really" meant.

dbalmatyou are apparently intentionally missing my points and trying to obfuscate, not clarify.

You parrot the words of the Big Names. Like the parrot, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Ah, what would you folks do if you could not engage in ad hominem?

dbalmatI will not address the hundreds of other specific inconsistencies, errors and absurdities that subject the Bible to attack. [Of course not]

You posited a rational God who, true to his nature, made a universe that is “rationally ordered.” ... I argued that any moral laws enacted by this rational God ... should in turn be rational. Your counter: “The atheists” don’t believe there are rational moral laws. In a word: Huh?

I forgot, I have to spell things out. People who believe in stereotypes are often unfamiliar with real-world beliefs and practices.

Paul argued in Romans that man by right reason was capable of discerning what was good. This faculty of synderesis meant that even those living outside the Jewish law could be saved, "for they have the law written in their hearts."

This in turn means that moral "law" is not like statutory law, something outside the lawgiver, but rather more like laws of nature. The whole thing was summarized as "the natural law."

But all this derives from final and formal causation, and these were rejected by the Enlightenment. How can there be natural laws if there are no natures (forms)?

dbalmatThis particular atheist thinks Rorty may be wrong; there may very well be rational moral laws that do not depend on a god.

Good for you. You are closer to St. Paul than to Rorty, then.

There is a discussion of the rational basis of morality here:http://m-francis.livejournal.com/148010.htmlbut you have to scroll down to "Good habits [virtues] are those which dispose us to perform acts consistent with our nature." et seq.

Additiona discussion here:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/are-there-secular-reasons/where you must scroll down to "But the debate takes another turn" to get to the nub. Smith argues that the secular vocabulary within which public discourse is constrained today is insufficient to convey our full set of normative convictions and commitments. We manage to debate normative matters anyway — but only by smuggling in notions that are formally inadmissible, and hence that cannot be openly acknowledged or adverted to.

IOW, Smith (and Fish) argue that people can debate morality independently of theology only by "smuggling in" theological notions.

dbalmatthe moral laws of the Bible (e.g. “death penalty for working on Sunday”) are not...rational.

Again, you fall into the fundamentalist way of thinking. First, the Christians did not adopt the whole of the Mosaic Law. Second, the Mosaic law consists of three parts: secular, liturgical, and moral laws all mixed together. Third, they had the pre-Christian notion that morality was strict obedience to a set of specific, spelled-out laws. No reasoning was necessary beyond the application of analogy. Muslim ijtihad employs the same methods.

I began my last series of posts by attempting to promote a coherent discussion by attempting to agree on its parameters. Me: “The way I see it, we’re asking two main questions: (1) Does a god exist? (2) If so, is there any reason to think it’s the Christian God of the Bible? Can we agree on these two main questions? If not, please stop now and tell me what else you think we are or should be discussing.”

This would have been a good place to say “Question Two should be changed. Christianity was well under way before the Bible was finalized.” Yet this statement only comes much, much later, as a bizarre response to my suggestion that the Bible is a good place to “begin” to examine the truth of the claims of Christianity. And even then you just flatly object, you don’t actually propose an alternative method.

From this we can conclude that you are not interested in a coherent discussion.

You: “This is a typical fundamentalist tack. But the Traditional churches…far outnumber you.” This and similar statements suggest that you are under the impression I am a fundamentalist Christian. If so, you are mistaken: I am an atheist. Now, I admit I’m not always as clear as I hope to be, but I bet that anybody who has read my posts even moderately carefully will have realized this, and thus would understand the point I was trying to make about fundamentalism, i.e., in my opinion, fundamentalism is the only consistent approach to interpreting the Bible, but that we would both agree this leads to unacceptable, irrational results.

From this we can conclude that you are not reading my posts even moderately carefully, and are not interested in understanding the points I’m trying to make.

If you did realize that I do not “espouse” fundamentalism and indeed am an atheist, your repeated statements that suggest differently are either examples of lazy writing or blatant attempts to set up strawmen. Your posts are replete with many similar examples, on greater and lesser points.

From this we can conclude either that you are not interested in being clear or cannot recognize fallacious reasoning.

@dbalmatOne always seeks answers within one's own reference frame. Anything oriented to a different reference frame results in puzzlement, or even anger.

The reason I referred to you as a "fundamentalist" is because, like many modern atheists (and unlike the old school atheists) you insist on using fundamentalist tropes and understandings. Augustine noted that 1500 years ago, when he chastised such simplistic readings and pointed out how easy it was for such folks to slip into unbelief upon encountering passages they could not reconcile with their own prior beliefs. (And which they would then call "contradictions."

You complain: my suggestion that the Bible is a good place to “begin” to examine the truth of the claims of Christianity. And even then you just flatly object, you don’t actually propose an alternative method.

That's because it was the second time you had relied on a fundamentalist worldview. I had earlier pointed out the alternative: refer to the actual doctrines taught by the Orthodox and Roman churches. The latter has gathered these doctrines into a book called the catechism; and the reading protocols for the Bible were set out by that same "Church Father," Augustine.

Your only response was the usual fundamentalist one that "Those aren't in the Book!" Well, no, of course not. Neither are the Supreme Court rulings in the Constitution.

It is as if you have suited up for a Little League game and then the New York Yankees show up. None of your arguments address the doctrines of the two largest churches in Christendom one iota.

Does God exist? I outlined a rational argument for it as well as I could in a brief comm box exchange. Your response was not to seek a better understanding of the argument, but to say in effect, Sez who? (And that to the most easily established point!)

The second question, whether this God is the Christian God, is answerable by definition: this is what the Traditional churches have taught for roughly 2000 years. Some aspects are deducible through reason from the Pure Act, as I illustrated; others are believed through Revelation. (Gödel's Theorems shows that the set of true statements in a system must exceed the set of provable statements.) Thomas Aquinas spent hundreds of pages of close reasoning establishing much of it, both in Summa contra gentiles and in digest form in Summa theologica.

I have provided summaries of rational arguments, links to sundry philosophers more accomplished than a mere mathematician and engineer like myself. What rational arguments have you provided? What reasoned rebuttals?